<html><head><style type='text/css'>p { margin: 0; }</style></head><body><div style='font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt; color: #000000'>great explanation Wes. thanks.<span><br><br><span name="x"></span>---<br>Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.<br>Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1<br>(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)<br>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<br>Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it. <br> - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)<br><span name="x"></span><br></span><br><hr id="zwchr"><b>From: </b>"Wes Sisk" <wsisk@cisco.com><br><b>To: </b>"Sandy Lee" <Sandy.Lee@dti.ulaval.ca><br><b>Cc: </b>"cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net)" <cisco-voip@puck.nether.net><br><b>Sent: </b>Wednesday, April 6, 2011 3:06:43 PM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [cisco-voip] Better way than CTI Route Point for a voicemail only in CallManager 8x<br><br>This does not address the functional question but does give a bit of <br>history.<br><br>CTI Route Points were originally only for redirecting calls. They <br>provided a mechanism for an entity external to CUCM to reroute calls. <br>To that end CTI Route Points originally did not support media <br>termination. For purposes of capacity planning CTI Route points are <br>considered more like trunks as they should handle bulk call volume. CTI <br>ports are more like phones as they typically receive and provide <br>treatment for a single call.<br><br>Much of this history became null and void when CTI Route points started <br>allowing media termination in the late CM4.x time frame.<br><br>In general CTI route points should be used for instantaneous routing of <br>calls. If a call "sits" on the route point then their has to be a <br>hunting algorithm to cover many CTI route points or possibly the CTI <br>application backending the CTI Route Point would have to be <br>multi-threaded to provide concurrent treatment. There is a concern here <br>about the many:1 relationship. When multiple calling parties attempt to <br>access the same single resource you get into Erlang calculations.<br><br>Hope this helps.<br>Wes<br><br><br>On 4/6/2011 11:02 AM, Sandy Lee wrote:<br>> While on the subject of CTI RP for voicemail, can someone explain to me the difference between a CTI RP and a CTI Port? I mean, why create a CTI RP instead of a CTI port to define a Call Handler in Unity? Why one over the other?<br>><br>> Thanks.<br>><br>> Sandy.<br>><br>><br>> -----Original Message-----<br>> From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Wellnitz, Erick A.<br>> Sent: 6 avril 2011 08:55<br>> To: Jason Aarons (AM)<br>> Cc: cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net)<br>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Better way than CTI Route Point for a voicemail only in CallManager 8x<br>><br>> You should be able to create a directory number without associating it with a 'device'. The only issue is you or your client will not have a quick way to identify which DNs are specifically for VM boxes. I would also like something easier to keep track of these 'one off' DNs.<br>><br>> On Apr 5, 2011, at 8:15 PM, "Jason Aarons (AM)"<jason.aarons@us.didata.com<mailto:jason.aarons@us.didata.com>> wrote:<br>><br>> I have some Unity Connection 8.5 "informational mailboxes" that will be used with UCCE. Just a recording the queue is busy and leave a message.<br>><br>> It seems like for users that don't have phones, just a voice mailbox, there should be a Device> Voicemail , rather than cheating around the DLU issues (back in that day I would make a phone that just has the phone number as the mac address and sent direct to vm but that trick now uses costly DLUs) It seams I'm back to creating a CTI Route Points for these mailboxes, which work,s but just seems odd when you explain it to a customer.<br>><br>> It's like telling someone to use bungee cords to shut your car trunk, it works - but kind of odd. Eventually you think the car manufacturer would have a model with a latch for the trunk, but 5 years later all the new models don't have the latch and your explaining the bungee cord can come in colors</rant><br>><br>> Should I bother with having the customer submit a CallManager feature request for this? Seems my call forwarding from secondary lines request in 2001 didn't make it too far<grin>...<br>><br>> ________________________________<br>><br>> [DDIPT]<http://dimensiondata.stream57.com/04141pm/><br>><br>> 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.<br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> cisco-voip mailing list<br>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net><br>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip<br>><br>> ===========================================================<br>> CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to Regulations Governing Practice Before the Internal Revenue Service, any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used and cannot be used by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.<br>> ===========================================================<br>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:<br>> This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of this information may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. Please notify the sender, by electronic mail or telephone, of any unintended recipients and delete the original message without making any copies.<br>> ===========================================================<br>> NOTIFICATION: Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP is an Illinois limited liability partnership that has elected to be governed by the Illinois Uniform Partnership Act (1997).<br>> ===========================================================<br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> cisco-voip mailing list<br>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<br>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip<br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> cisco-voip mailing list<br>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<br>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip<br>_______________________________________________<br>cisco-voip mailing list<br>cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<br>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip<br></div></body></html>