The BCM is stuck there for sometime as there are other offices relying on
it, so it will be the last to go, removing it will cause major disruptions.
Before replacing it fully the replacement solution must be rock solid so
a migration path is the only way.
the i2004's do work with trixboxCE but currently they do not work with
Pro because pro is still on 1.4 and will not be updated to 1.6 for a few
more months.
/<----> BCM400 ---> i2004
PRI --> Tenor DX2024 - IVR --->
\<----> Trixbox ---> Aastra
6731i
The idea here is to have the Tenor manage the lines while the IVR and Dial
plan do the routing.
But that would involve moving the PRI from the BCM to the Tenor,
which definitely requires testing.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Ian Darwin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Anthony Boyington wrote:
>
>> 2c and more... and its Monday.
>>
>> I do agree, and the "why" was the first question asked, I really do not
>> want
>> the BCM in the mix, however they already invested heavily in this system,
>> it's the backbone of their company, location (B) will not have this
>> problem
>> so connecting (A) to (B) is where * comes in.
>>
>>
>>
> You might not need the Citel gateway if you are willing to keep the i2004
> phones at location A but can replace the BCM itself, since * 1.6 does have
> some support for the i2004 phones built-in.
>
> You'd certainly want to put a few phones on a network and test this
> extensively,
> but it gets rid of the BCM without causing a lot of disruption on the
> desktop. However there
> are some limitations; since the i2004's "Unistim" protocol is not publicly
> documented there are some phone pheatures that don't work. Again, testing
> and expectations-management would be keys to success along this path, should
> you undertake it.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>
--
Regards,
Anthony
