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

[NateCCIE]

But I have yet to see a 7925 deployment that the end users are happy with. It is seemingly impossible for the wireless guys to get it perfect. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 12, 2016, at 10:29 AM, Ryan Ratliff (rratliff) <rratliff at cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> 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> 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> on behalf of Thomas LeMay <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> 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
> 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/20160512/1c9b1b00/attachment.html>