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

Fri May 13 14:06:43 EDT 2016

Agreed :)

Sincerely,

Ryan Burtch

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Norton, Mike <mikenorton at pwsd76.ab.ca>
wrote:

> The thing people always seem to forget about Wi-Fi deployments is this:
>
>
>
> “This device complies with part 15 of the FCC Rules. Operation is subject
> to the following two conditions: (1) This device may not cause harmful
> interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received,
> including interference that may cause undesired operation.”
>
>
>
> You have NO CONTROL over the Layer 1 medium and you share it with
> everybody. Pretending otherwise is futile.
>
>
>
> -mn
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] *On Behalf
> Of *Ryan Ratliff (rratliff)
> *Sent:* May-12-16 1:27 PM
> *To:* Anthony Holloway <avholloway+cisco-voip at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Cisco VoIP Group <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] [cisco-VoIP] UCCE agents on wireless IP
> Communicator?
>
>
>
> I’m sure nothing in wireless is as simple as my tiny brain can comprehend
> :)
>
>
>
> -Ryan
>
>
>
> On May 12, 2016, at 2:58 PM, Anthony Holloway <
> avholloway+cisco-voip at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160513/adf08ee4/attachment.html>