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

[Anthony Holloway]

I don't think it's that simple Ryan.

The first and most important document is the Enterprise Mobility Design
Guide

Reference Link:
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/wireless/controller/8-1/Enterprise-Mobility-8-1-Design-Guide/Enterprise_Mobility_8-1_Deployment_Guide.html

However, that document is really big and covers a lot more than just
Jabber.  When you get down to the topic at hand, a more manageable and bite
sized version of that document can be read here:

http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/wireless/controller/technotes/8-1/Jabber_in_WLAN/b_Jabber_in_WLAN.html

As a contrast, Jabber on a wired connection, is simply a matter of matching
traffic flows from the client device (PC, Mac, mobile, etc.), and marking
the packets.  This allows us to maintain our trust boundary, but provide an
exception for the traffic flows matching Jabber.

Reference Link:
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/jabber/10_6/CJAB_BK_C56DE1AB_00_cisco-jabber-106-deployment-and-installation-guide/CJAB_BK_C56DE1AB_00_cisco-jabber-106-deployment-and-installation-guide_appendix_01111.html#CJAB_TK_DD601B77_00

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Ryan Ratliff (rratliff) <rratliff at cisco.com
> wrote:

> The difference between computers and 7925s primarily being that one walks
> down the hall and the other sits on a desk.
> If you can keep the PC from roaming then it’s just a matter of proper QOS
> and available bandwidth, yes?
>
> -Ryan
>
> On May 12, 2016, at 2:18 PM, NateCCIE <nateccie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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 <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
> <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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160512/808dd11c/attachment.html>