[cisco-voip] Unity PIMG

Thu Mar 20 19:15:51 EDT 2008

The T1 integration is a T1 CAS, so there's no call info there. Unity is 
going to need the forwarding station, to know whose mailbox to deliver 
to, and you can't get that over a PRI, anyways.

If you're trying to lose the serial link, the digital PIMG is definitely 
the (only) way to go. As for compatibility, there's always a little 
tweaking/customization work that ends up being done, but don't sweat it 
too much, the docs are PBX specific, including the NEC 2400 and have 
details for both the PIMG and PBX settings. You can take a look at the 
integration guide on CCO:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/voice_ip_comm/unity/5x/integration/pimg/guide/cuintpimg090.html

or, you can go straight to the horse's mouth and read Dialogic's docs:

http://www.dialogic.com/support/helpweb/mg/

-------- Original Message  --------
From: "Johnson, Ken" <kenjohnson at letu.edu>
To: "Pat Hayes" <pat-cv at wcyv.com>
Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re:[cisco-voip] Unity PIMG
Date: 3/20/2008 6:52 PM
> Oh ok interesting - so even in the T1 situation the call info would flow
> over a serial link - not over the T1 - I guess it's just our PRIs that
> do it natively (I assume over the D-channel but my PRI theory isn't that
> great :-)
>
> So under that scenario of the serial link was the most important thing
> to eliminate (ours on the PBX is flakey which is the reason for the
> interest) it sounds like possibly the digital PIMG would be a possible
> best solution.
>
> From a cabling perspective we have an extra T1 card in the switch ready
> - and existing analog lines to the Dialogic card so even dropping in the
> digital unit (or T1) wouldn't be that bad on the wiring - but you've
> saved me from some bad assumptions on the serial link at least.
>
> Clearly if it doesn't offer that serial elimination advantage it's
> possibly foolish to pay the nearly three times price on the T1 version
> vs the 8-port analog or digital when we would only need to drop two
> lines (which we can do given that our Callmanager call percentage is
> growing anyway). But what I'm hearing is if we converted those analog
> lines to digital ports the digital PIMG might offer that serial link
> elimination we need - although perhaps the compatibility with our NEAX
> 2400 might be a little tougher to get going since I assume digital
> station standards are not nearly as uniform as T1 or analog standards
> :-)
>
> Ken Johnson
>    Mgr. Network Services,
>    Information Technology
>    LeTourneau University
> _________________________________
>  E-mail: kenjohnson at letu.edu
>  Helpdesk: (903) 233-3500
>  Phone: (903) 233-3520
>  Web: http://www.letu.edu/infotech/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pat Hayes [mailto:pat-cv at wcyv.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 5:19 PM
> To: Johnson, Ken
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Unity PIMG
>
> I'd definitely agree that moving to a PIMG integration is desirable, 
> both so that you can get off of server 2000 and because they seem to be 
> a lot more configurable and flexible.
>
> All of the PIMG/TIMG solutions have the ability to provide 
> calling/called party information to Unity, as long as the PBX provides 
> it in the first place. In the case of the analog PIMG and the TIMG, the 
> call info is passed over a serial link. For digital PIMGs, the PIMG 
> emulates a digital phone, so it is able to parse the information from 
> the phone's 'display'.
>
> Assuming you've got an analog/serial integration at the moment, moving 
> to one or more analog PIMGs is probably the closest 'drop in' solution, 
> involving the fewest changes on the PBX side. TIMGs are a little easier 
> on the wiring, but you'll have to setup a new T1 on the PBX.
>
> -------- Original Message  --------
> From: "Johnson, Ken" <kenjohnson at letu.edu>
> To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Subject: [cisco-voip] Unity PIMG
> Date: 3/20/2008 3:29 PM
>
>   
>> I have a question for those of you with Unity-PIMG experience.  We 
>> continue to run our Unity 4.x infrastructure on both the native 
>> CallManager integration and a Dialogic integration with analog ports
>>     
> on 
>   
>> our NEC NEAX 2400 PBX.
>>
>>  
>>
>> We are realizing that as we migrate to Unity 5.x it may be time to put
>>     
>
>   
>> the Dialogic out to pasture - especially to allow us to get off
>>     
> Windows 
>   
>> 2000 - however we're also wondering if we'll see any management or 
>> performance benefits by making this change.  Most specifically - since
>>     
>
>   
>> we currently only have 10 analog ports on the PBX - we're wondering if
>>     
>
>   
>> we would be best advised to migrate down to the 8-port digital station
>>     
>
>   
>> version of the PIMG or go with the T1.  Our preference is T1/PRI 
>> interfaces historically mainly for integration of caller number 
>> information, etc - but we weren't sure if the digital station would 
>> include this capability as well (i.e. with either PIMG solution will
>>     
> we 
>   
>> be able to eliminate the serial signaling interface for calling number
>>     
>
>   
>> delivery?
>>
>>  
>>
>> Any other reasons we should either be hesitant to make this change 
>> and/or choose the T1 solution vs the digital port version?
>>
>>  
>>
>> Ken Johnson
>>    Mgr. Network Services,
>>    Information Technology
>>    LeTourneau University
>> _________________________________
>>  E-mail: kenjohnson at letu.edu
>>  Helpdesk: (903) 233-3500
>>  Phone: (903) 233-3520
>>  Web: http://www.letu.edu/infotech/
>>     
> <BLOCKED::http://www.letu.edu/infotech/>
>   
>>
>>     
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>     
>
>
>   