Re: CTI communications Callmanager

This is purely a theory, but wouldn't using an AC pilot
point and a hunt 
  group be a way of psuedo-load-balancing connections into a
CTI 
application such as CRS server acting purely as an IVR (not
running IPCC 
Express)?  Can the CTI route points which CRS server
registers be placed 
into a hunt group?

Just thinking that this would be an alternative method of
doing IVR 
load-balancing for an IPCC enterprise environment (where you
currently 
can accomplish load balancing only within the routing script
itself).  I 
can't see any reason to use this (i.e.; it doesn't provide
additional 
functionality), but would be interesting to see if it
works.

-matt

Ryan Ratliff wrote:
> It depends on what CTI application you are using.  AC
itself is a CTI  
> application that you just happen to be able to
configure via  
> CCMAdmin.  An AC pilot point is for all intents and
purposes a CTI  
> RP.  Instead of redirecting to a CTI Port however it
sends calls to  
> phones configured in the hunt group.
> 
> IPCC Express, and every other CTI application that
might be out there  
> will have to use CTI RPs and Ports.
> 
> -Ryan
> 
> On Jun 27, 2007, at 4:03 AM, Jeremie Ceintrey wrote:
> 
> Thanks for your help. I understand that. But I still
don't get the  
> difference between RP and Pilot Point. When you use CTI
applications  
> you can use both techniques to forward incomming calls
to CTI Ports :
> Pilot Point, Hunt Group, with the attendant console
user
> Route Point with the JTAPI user
> Thanks.
> Jé.
> 
> 
> 2007/6/26, Ryan Ratliff <rratliffcisco.com>: Typically the CTI RP is  
> used to accept incoming calls, and it will
> then redirect to CTI Port to handle media.  No RTP is
streamed to the
> CTI RP itself.
> The Jtapi developers guide probably has more info.
> 
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/voicesw/ps556/
>
products_programming_usage_guide_chapter09186a00806eb6f6.htm
l#wp1028878
> 
> -Ryan
> 
> On Jun 26, 2007, at 11:03 AM, Jeremie Ceintrey wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> my question is about CTI communications with
Callmanager.
> 
> Pilot points and CTI Route points are both logical
channels that
> receive incoming communication demands on a defined
phone
> number, and forward the communication to a defined CTI
channel.
> 
> Can anyone explain me difference between these two ways
of forwarding
> calls to CTI channels.
> 
> Thanks.
> jé.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voippuck.nether.net
> h
ttps://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voippuck.nether.net
> h
ttps://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voippuck.nether.net
h
ttps://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

CTI devices in a hunt list is not supported, and in fact CTI
devices  
should not even show up to be added to a line group for a
hunt list.   
For an AC hunt group I'm not sure what would happen.

-Ryan

On Jun 27, 2007, at 12:33 PM, Matthew Saskin wrote:

This is purely a theory, but wouldn't using an AC pilot
point and a hunt
   group be a way of psuedo-load-balancing connections into
a CTI
application such as CRS server acting purely as an IVR (not
running IPCC
Express)?  Can the CTI route points which CRS server
registers be placed
into a hunt group?

Just thinking that this would be an alternative method of
doing IVR
load-balancing for an IPCC enterprise environment (where you
currently
can accomplish load balancing only within the routing script
itself).  I
can't see any reason to use this (i.e.; it doesn't provide
additional
functionality), but would be interesting to see if it
works.

-matt

Ryan Ratliff wrote:
> It depends on what CTI application you are using.  AC
itself is a CTI
> application that you just happen to be able to
configure via
> CCMAdmin.  An AC pilot point is for all intents and
purposes a CTI
> RP.  Instead of redirecting to a CTI Port however it
sends calls to
> phones configured in the hunt group.
>
> IPCC Express, and every other CTI application that
might be out there
> will have to use CTI RPs and Ports.
>
> -Ryan
>
> On Jun 27, 2007, at 4:03 AM, Jeremie Ceintrey wrote:
>
> Thanks for your help. I understand that. But I still
don't get the
> difference between RP and Pilot Point. When you use CTI
applications
> you can use both techniques to forward incomming calls
to CTI Ports :
> Pilot Point, Hunt Group, with the attendant console
user
> Route Point with the JTAPI user
> Thanks.
> Jé.
>
>
> 2007/6/26, Ryan Ratliff <rratliffcisco.com>: Typically the CTI RP is
> used to accept incoming calls, and it will
> then redirect to CTI Port to handle media.  No RTP is
streamed to the
> CTI RP itself.
> The Jtapi developers guide probably has more info.
>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/voicesw/ps556/
>
products_programming_usage_guide_chapter09186a00806eb6f6.htm
l#wp102887 
> 8
>
> -Ryan
>
> On Jun 26, 2007, at 11:03 AM, Jeremie Ceintrey wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> my question is about CTI communications with
Callmanager.
>
> Pilot points and CTI Route points are both logical
channels that
> receive incoming communication demands on a defined
phone
> number, and forward the communication to a defined CTI
channel.
>
> Can anyone explain me difference between these two ways
of forwarding
> calls to CTI channels.
>
> Thanks.
> jé.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voippuck.nether.net
> h
ttps://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voippuck.nether.net
> h
ttps://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voippuck.nether.net
h
ttps://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voippuck.nether.net
h
ttps://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip