[cisco-voip] CISCO UC 8.X solution over MS OCS/Lync 2010. Why?

[Nick Matthews]

As well, look into the hardware requirements in the case of a wan failure at
a branch site.  From what I understand it requires a server at each site,
where in the Cisco design it's a single router.

>From what I remember, their presence isn't standards based and may have to
pay for another server to interoperate.  As mentioned, how comfortable are
you with a third party requirement for support of a contact center?  I think
they needed another server even for MWI, not sure if that's been fixed.
E911, probably another server.

Microsoft also believes you don't need QoS because of their adaptive codec.
As someone who used to troubleshoot voice quality problems on a daily basis,
I whole heartedly disagree.  I'm also not fond of requiring stability in my
operating system to have a stable voice platform.

-nick

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Andrew Dorsett <vtadorsett at gmail.com>wrote:

> You didn't specify if you were a multi-site operation or not.  But have you
> considered QoS, CAC, and perhaps RSVP when integrating with existing room
> based VTC?  Do you have a requirement for VTC?  I would ask Microsoft about
> their support for multiple codecs and how they handle integrating to a
> traditional TDM provider.  What about e911?  How do you handle a situation
> where an entire office is Lync clients and the power goes out, what about
> 911 functionality?  Or how about the cleaning crew at night...What if one of
> them has a heart attack, where's the physical phone to dial 911 since they
> don't have a laptop/desktop?  Don't get me wrong, I'm all for soft-clients
> in the right environment, but there are still requirements for hard-phones
> that are often overlooked until someone is running around looking for the
> medics...
>
> Andrew
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 7:12 AM, JA Colmenares <sforcejr at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>   If you were asked why choosing CUC 8.X over OCS/Lync 2010 when the
>> costs of setup and licensing for the MIcrosoft solution are much cheaper?.
>> Please take my word about being cheaper due to particular circumstances in
>> our company.
>>
>>
>>
>> What would your reply be? , I need help justifying the CISCO option. I
>> read this document:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns151/C11-604516-00_Evaluating_UC_Solutions_WP.pdf<https://webmail.duckcreektech.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=7d9a2103295c47799dacf3a191228bc1&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.cisco.com%2fen%2fUS%2fsolutions%2fcollateral%2fns151%2fC11-604516-00_Evaluating_UC_Solutions_WP.pdf>
>>
>>
>>
>> I need a more objective and unbiased resource. If you believe you can
>> still take a "jab" on the cost aspect, elaborate on it. But I am looking
>> more on the benefits and robustness of the solution. A Hybrid solution is
>> not an option. Either all CISCO or all Microsoft.
>>
>>
>>
>> Not even CISCO partners in my area have been able to provide solid answers
>> to this question.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20101019/2ff8ed3b/attachment.html>