[cisco-voip] [cisco-VoIP] UCCE agents on wireless IP Communicator?

[Ryan Ratliff (rratliff)]

I’ll take a slight issue with the original response about CIPC not being stable over wireless.

I believe the intent of the response is that realtime voice and video over wireless can be a challenge for a wifi environment that isn’t designed specifically to handle it.

Personally I’ve used CIPC and now Jabber (as a softphone) for voice and video calls on my laptop both in the Cisco office and at home with very little issue.
The apps themselves can handle the transport just fine, it’s the network that sometimes can’t handle the apps.

-Ryan

On May 12, 2016, at 7:23 AM, Thomas LeMay <thomaslemay at comcast.net<mailto:thomaslemay at comcast.net>> wrote:

Hi, Ryan,

Thank you for the information.

Tom

From: Ryan Huff [mailto:ryanhuff at outlook.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 11:15 PM
To: Thomas LeMay; 'Ryan Burtch'; 'Nick Barnett'
Cc: 'Cisco VoIP Group'
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] [cisco-VoIP] UCCE agents on wireless IP Communicator?

Many moons ago in a land called Ohio, I rescued a small agent base from doing this ...

Aside from the obvious QOS and reliable connection issues; in that client's case the agents would also occasionally want to use the speakerphone function without a headset (PC Speaker / Mic) and without an HD/noise canceling mic this will usually inject audio artifacts from the speaker into the audio stream. The net effect is duplicated/mis understood DTMF (when using rtp-nte).

If this is unavoidable though, and your client is going to travel this path despite all your warnings otherwise; I would recommend the agent's PC on a separate SSID / Interface from the Corporate SSID / Interface and put all the agent's PC traffic in the EF queue (or at least trust/mark the CIPC traffic) and make sure there is adequate radio coverage by each agent.

If the client is looking at this as a telecommute option for employees, the issues are further exacerbated by the nature of having heterogeneous wireless connectivity (unless the business standardizes and issues wireless devices to employees).

Thanks,

= Ryan =

________________________________
From: cisco-voip <cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net>> on behalf of Thomas LeMay <thomaslemay at comcast.net<mailto:thomaslemay at comcast.net>>
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 10:42 PM
To: 'Ryan Burtch'; 'Nick Barnett'
Cc: 'Cisco VoIP Group'
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] [cisco-VoIP] UCCE agents on wireless IP Communicator?

How about Jabber? Is Jabber stable enough even though it does not support multiple lines? My thought would be no based on the same reason for CIPC.

Tom

From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Ryan Burtch
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 2:58 PM
To: Nick Barnett
Cc: Cisco VoIP Group
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCE agents on wireless IP Communicator?

This is a terrible idea. CIPC not stable enough on wireless. Introduce VPN and this is a disaster waiting to happen.




Sincerely,

Ryan Burtch

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Nick Barnett <nicksbarnett at gmail.com<mailto:nicksbarnett at gmail.com>> wrote:
Does anyone have any experiences running CIPC on wireless for UCCE agents? It sounds like a...um, bad idea to me.  One of my customers is moving to this "design."

A cursory look at the 10.0 SRND didn't show any hits for "wired" or "wireless".

thanks,
Nick

_______________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20160512/a3121ce8/attachment.html>