Reading through the SRND for UCCE and in the section about CTI route point / ports associated with the IP IVR, it mentions for High Availability you should add call forward on no answer, busy and cti failures to another CTI route point / port.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/voice_ip_comm/cust_contact/contact_center/ipcc_enterprise/srnd/75/cc75srnd.pdf Page 3-13:
You can implement Unified IP IVR port high availability by using any of the following call-forward
features in Unified CM:
• Forward Busy — forwards calls to another port or route point when Unified CM detects that the port
is busy. This feature can be used to forward calls to another resource when a Unified IP IVR CTI
port is busy due to a Unified IP IVR application problem, such as running out of available CTI ports.
• Forward No Answer — forwards calls to another port or route point when Unified CM detects that
a port has not picked up a call within the timeout period set in Unified CM. This feature can be used
to forward calls to another resource when a Unified IP IVR CTI port is not answering due to a
Unified IP IVR application problem.
• Forward on Failure — forwards calls to another port or route point when Unified CM detects a port
failure caused by an application error. This feature can be used to forward calls to another resource
when a Unified IP IVR CTI port is busy due to a Unified CM application error.
In a UCCE 7.5 with two or more IP IVRs 4.x solution is this needed when the scripting can detect the number of available ports and avoid using an IVR which is having problems?
On call manager failures, it guess there may be some advantage, but does seem add to the administration of the solution.
Would this also not cause issues if implemented on translation route points for the IVR, as the DNIS would change when forwarding occurs. Not sure. Any ideas / thoughts?
