Re: [cisco-voip] [cisco-VoIP] UCCE agents on wireless IP Communicator?
Agreed :) Sincerely, Ryan Burtch On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Norton, Mike <mikenor...@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-boun...@puck.nether.net] *On Behalf > Of *Ryan Ratliff (rratliff) > *Sent:* May-12-16 1:27 PM > *To:* Anthony Holloway <avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> > *Cc:* Cisco VoIP Group <cisco-voip@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-v...@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_0.html#CJAB_TK_DD601B77_00 > > > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Ryan Ratliff (rratliff) < > rratl...@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 <natec...@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) <rratl...@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 <thomasle...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > Hi, Ryan, > > > > Thank you for the information. > > > > Tom > > > > *From:* Ryan Huff [mailto:ryanh...@outlook.com <ryanh...@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 th
Re: [cisco-voip] [cisco-VoIP] UCCE agents on wireless IP Communicator?
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-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Ryan Ratliff (rratliff) Sent: May-12-16 1:27 PM To: Anthony Holloway <avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> Cc: Cisco VoIP Group <cisco-voip@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-v...@gmail.com<mailto:avholloway+cisco-v...@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_0.html#CJAB_TK_DD601B77_00 On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Ryan Ratliff (rratliff) <rratl...@cisco.com<mailto:rratl...@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 <natec...@gmail.com<mailto:natec...@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) <rratl...@cisco.com<mailto:rratl...@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 <thomasle...@comcast.net<mailto:thomasle...@comcast.net>> wrote: Hi, Ryan, Thank you for the information. Tom From: Ryan Huff [mailto:ryanh...@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 = ___
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-v...@gmail.com<mailto:avholloway+cisco-v...@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_0.html#CJAB_TK_DD601B77_00 On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Ryan Ratliff (rratliff) <rratl...@cisco.com<mailto:rratl...@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 <natec...@gmail.com<mailto:natec...@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) <rratl...@cisco.com<mailto:rratl...@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 <thomasle...@comcast.net<mailto:thomasle...@comcast.net>> wrote: Hi, Ryan, Thank you for the information. Tom From: Ryan Huff [mailto:ryanh...@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-boun...@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> on behalf of Thomas LeMay <thomasle...@comcast.net<mailto:thomasle...@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-boun...@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 terr
Re: [cisco-voip] [cisco-VoIP] UCCE agents on wireless IP Communicator?
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_0.html#CJAB_TK_DD601B77_00 On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Ryan Ratliff (rratliff) <rratl...@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 <natec...@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) <rratl...@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 <thomasle...@comcast.net> wrote: > > Hi, Ryan, > > Thank you for the information. > > Tom > > *From:* Ryan Huff [mailto:ryanh...@outlook.com <ryanh...@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-boun...@puck.nether.net> on behalf of > Thomas LeMay <thomasle...@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-boun...@puck.nether.net > <cisco-voip-boun...@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] UCC
Re: [cisco-voip] [cisco-VoIP] UCCE agents on wireless IP Communicator?
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 <natec...@gmail.com<mailto:natec...@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) <rratl...@cisco.com<mailto:rratl...@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 <thomasle...@comcast.net<mailto:thomasle...@comcast.net>> wrote: Hi, Ryan, Thank you for the information. Tom From: Ryan Huff [mailto:ryanh...@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-boun...@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> on behalf of Thomas LeMay <thomasle...@comcast.net<mailto:thomasle...@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-boun...@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 <nicksbarn...@gmail.com<mailto:nicksbarn...@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@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] [cisco-VoIP] UCCE agents on wireless IP Communicator?
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) <rratl...@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 <thomasle...@comcast.net> wrote: > > Hi, Ryan, > > Thank you for the information. > > Tom > > From: Ryan Huff [mailto:ryanh...@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-boun...@puck.nether.net> on behalf of Thomas > LeMay <thomasle...@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-boun...@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 <nicksbarn...@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@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip > > ___ > cisco-voip mailing list > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip > > ___ > cisco-voip mailing list > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] [cisco-VoIP] UCCE agents on wireless IP Communicator?
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 <thomasle...@comcast.net<mailto:thomasle...@comcast.net>> wrote: Hi, Ryan, Thank you for the information. Tom From: Ryan Huff [mailto:ryanh...@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-boun...@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> on behalf of Thomas LeMay <thomasle...@comcast.net<mailto:thomasle...@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-boun...@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 <nicksbarn...@gmail.com<mailto:nicksbarn...@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@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] [cisco-VoIP] UCCE agents on wireless IP Communicator?
Hi, Ryan, Thank you for the information. Tom From: Ryan Huff [mailto:ryanh...@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-boun...@puck.nether.net> on behalf of Thomas LeMay <thomasle...@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-boun...@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 <nicksbarn...@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@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
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-boun...@puck.nether.net> on behalf of Thomas LeMay <thomasle...@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-boun...@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 <nicksbarn...@gmail.com<mailto:nicksbarn...@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@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
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-boun...@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 <nicksbarn...@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@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
