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

Tue Oct 19 10:32:20 EDT 2010

Just curious... is their CAC based on RSVP?

Eric Butcher
Cisco Unified Communications Engineer
CDW Professional Services
11711 N Meridian, Ste 225
Carmel, IN  46032
* 317.569.4282 - IP Phone
* 765.744.1458 - Mobile
* eric.butcher at cdw.com<mailto:eric.butcher at cdw.com>
http://www.cdw.com/

From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Matt Slaga (US)
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 10:23 AM
To: Nick Matthews; Andrew Dorsett
Cc: cisco voip
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CISCO UC 8.X solution over MS OCS/Lync 2010. Why?

No server needed now for Exchange 2010 MWI.

Microsoft also partners with Polycom, Snom and several other vendors for hard physical phones, so you are not locked into just software driven audio.

Microsoft also before didn't tout QoS and CAC, in my opinion mostly because they didn't have a solution.  Now that they have CAC, they strongly suggest your solution have it.  You can also perform full QoS in your environment with Microsoft, however you are going to have to trust the endpoints to have their DSCP set correctly.  In most enterprise environments, this is really a non-issue as they can be set at an administrative level through group policies.

I'm not touting one vendor over another, they both can solve specific issues based on your specific needs.  What it sounds like what you need to do is perform a review of what your exact requirements are based on business objectives and future needs and compare that to which vendor can meet most of your objectives.  I doubt you will find any single vendor that will answer all your objectives.

From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Nick Matthews
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 12:08 AM
To: Andrew Dorsett
Cc: cisco voip
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CISCO UC 8.X solution over MS OCS/Lync 2010. Why?

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

________________________________

Disclaimer: This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information and is for use by the designated addressee(s) named above only. If you are not the intended addressee, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any use or reproduction of this email or its contents is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20101019/f4a4a915/attachment.html>