[cisco-voip] Fwd: Fake phones - Call Forwarding?

[Shawn Wilson]

I have found CTI ports work the best, as they are not licensed and you can
use the BAT tool to make any changes required.  You cannot use the BAT tool
to create or change CTI route points or translation patterns, although you
may be able to do this via the import/export part of BAT in the latest
versions of UCM.

Cheers,

Shawn


On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca> wrote:

> The great thing about CTI route points is that (as far as I know) you can
> assign them to ccmuser IDs and have users modify the call forward all
> setting if required.
>
> ---
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> "Bad grammar makes me [sic]" - Tshirt
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dane" <dane at pktloss.net>
> To: "Wes Sisk" <wsisk at cisco.com>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2009 9:44:06 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Fake phones - Call Forwarding?
>
> Glad to read the responses so far!  CTI route points was the direction
> I was heading and is what I have used in the past for this. However I
> wasn't sure how licensing might affect things nor was I sure about
> system resources, limitations (can you configure only x number of) or
> device weight of one option over another which is why I was seeking
> the advice of the collective since we have some very wise people on
> the list.  :-)
>
> So far of the three responses all have mentioned and suggested CTI
> route points which makes me feel a bit more comfortable about my own
> decision to use those.
>
> Thanks for the responses so far they have been very helpful.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Wes Sisk <wsisk at cisco.com> wrote:
> > You can use CTI ports instead of phones which are not licensed.  One
> > obstacle down.
> >
> > You could attempt to use unassigned DN's but that will not work due to:
> > CSCsj95732    CM 5.x / 6.x - Inactive or Unassigned DN with CFA still
> > forwards calls
> >
> > Either CTI Ports or straight up number translation will likely be best
> > approach.  Number translation via translation pattern in CM or
> > translation-rule on your h.323 gateway.
> >
> > /Wes
> >
> > On Sunday, April 26, 2009 12:01:55 PM, Dane <dane at pktloss.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Got a CM 4.1(3) system that I inherited that was setup with a bunch of
> >> fake phones to do call forwarding on old extensions / DIDs.
> >>
> >> The story is that when they moved buildings they setup a new
> >> CallManager system with new extensions and DID's for the
> >> administrative office phones / users.  This allowed them to setup and
> >> test everything in advance.
> >>
> >> When they moved they ported the old DID's over and set up fake phones
> >> to match the old ext. and then set the CallFwdAll to the users new
> >> extension.
> >>
> >> There is no easy way of mapping old DID's to the new ones.  Also a lot
> >> of these fake phones forward to another legacy system that runs the
> >> call center agents.
> >>
> >> Anyway.. despite how I may feel about what was done and why I need to
> >> get past that.  :-)
> >>
> >> The point of sharing this is I need a better way to handle and setup
> >> these forwards.  Why? Mainly because I am planning to move to CM 7 by
> >> the end of the year.  In my discussions with Cisco sales guys they
> >> informed me how different licensing is now in the new versions and
> >> kept asking for phone count since the licensing is impacted by phone
> >> count.
> >>
> >> I can't give them a good count right now due to the shear number of
> >> fake phones that are setup to do this call forwarding.
> >>
> >> There are many ways to do this but I am not sure what the best way is,
> >> especially when factoring in licensing.
> >>
> >> Thoughts or ideas on best way to handle call forwards without setting
> >> up a fake phone?  And ensure I don't run into another issue that would
> >> impact licensing like fake phones would?
> >>
> >> Obviously I am not just talking about a handful of phones. We are
> >> talking hundreds of these fake phones that just do call forwarding.
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> cisco-voip mailing list
> >> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> >>
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20090427/881341b9/attachment.html>