UCCE: Adding CVP in parallel with IP-IVR?

[david.macias]

My newest project consist of adding a pair of CVP servers and move part of the logic currently handled by IP-IVR to CVP.  The end result being that calls will arrive at ICM, go to IP-IVR, and only certain types of calls will then go back to ICM to be sent to CVP.  From CVP the call will either end or be returned to ICM to be sent back to the IP-IVR.  If anyone has done something similar I would love some pointers.

That being said, here's my question.  We have a PG pair with two PGs (PG1 UCM, PG2 IP-IVR).  So, our only option would be to add two new PIMs to PG2, right?  I've never seen a configuration like that, but it's my understanding that it should work.  Ideally, PG1 would have been for UCM and IP-IVR, however time is a big factor here and don't think we have the time to reconfigure the system to make it ideal.

david

[dehebert]

Hello David,

You didnt mention whcih version of UCCE you are running but I am going to assume it is 7.5(x).

SRND for 7.5(x) has a sizing section which goes over the options for PG setups:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/voice_ip_comm/cust_contact/contact_center/ipcc_enterprise/srnd/75/c7sizing.html#wp1103854

It shouldnt be too bad to change the CUCM PG to a generic PG and then add the IPIVR PIM to that. Other alternative is what you are asking and to just add the two CVP PIMs to your VRU PG2. Another possibilty is to add PG3 with the two CVP PIMs to that. SRND states that  "Up to 2 PG types are permitted per server, provided that any given server is limited to the maximum agent and VRU port limitations outlined in Table 10-2." In this scenario you would have three PGs but two PG types ( 1 CUCM PG and 2 VRU PGs). So it seems that you have three options to think about.

The SRND should help though.

I hope this helps.

-Denis

[david.macias]

Denis,

Thank you for the information, it's 7.2 by the way but the SRND section you posted still applies.  I talked to the PDI and they recommended just adding the CVP PIMS under PG2, which seems to be the least painful option.

One more question for you, I'm debating if we should have the calls go through CVP for signaling purposes instead of going to IP-IVR first then to CVP.  Any thoughts on that?

david

[dehebert]

Hello David,

If i was me deploying it, I would have the calls coming in through CVP and get the treatment that way. It seems more complicated to have it come to IPIVR and then back out and then to CVP. But I think you could probably do it either way but it seems like it would be more involved not sending it directly to CVP first.

Hope this helps.

Take care,

Denis