UCCX and Translation Patterns

[TomMar1]

We have run into calls getting stuck in queue when being transferred between CSQs.  CSQ 1 answers an external call, but then needs to transfer the call to CSQ 1.  The dialing pattern the agents are using is a Translation Pattern and according to https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cust_contact/contact_center/crs/express_12_5/release/guide/uccx_b_uccx-solution-release-notes-125/uccx_b_uccx-solution-release-notes-125_chapter_01.html?bookSearch=true that is an unsupported process.

My question is what configuration should I use?  The only other way I can think to 'translate' the call would be to use a CTI Route Point.  Telling the agents to dialing the trigger is not a realistic solution.

Some agents are using Jabber and look up the name of the other CSQ, other agents are using legacy numbers (which are currently built as Translation Patterns) that they have memorized.

Can anyone recommend a best practice?

Thanks

[jim-j · Accepted solution]

---

My question is what configuration should I use?  The only other way I can think to 'translate' the call would be to use a CTI Route Point.  Telling the agents to dialing the trigger is not a realistic solution.

---

When I had this problem I recreated all of the translation patterns (pointing at the app/trigger) as triggers (an app/csq can have multiple triggers).  That way my agents are always dialing triggers directly, but they're not aware of it.

[TomMar1]

It looks like building the trigger in UCCX ends up creating a CTI Route Point in Call Manager.

Thanks for the reply.

[Roger Kallberg]

You are absolutely correct, a trigger in CCX is creating a CTI RP in CM that is controlled with CTI by CCX.

[TomMar1]

Does it matter if I just build CTI RPs in Call Manager or should I create CCX triggers that will in turn be built in CM?  Other than being able to select the call control group via CCX is there any value in building them one way over the other?

Thanks for the replies.

[jim-j]

The standard processis for UCCX to create the CTI RP, why wouldn't you want UCCX to do this?  I think you'll see an error in UCCX if it tries to create a route point, but the extension already exists (in that partition) in CUCM.

[TomMar1]

It is not that I want it one way over the over, I am curious as to what the best practice is and why.  TAC only tells you what is supported and what is not.  I was hoping for a best practice/recommended configuration solution.  Hence my post here and follow up questions.  I bet this unsupported configuration trips up a lot of folks.

I will delete the existing Translation Patterns and CTI Route Points and rebuild them via UCCX.

Thanks again for the replies.

[Roger Kallberg]

Yes it matters. If you create it in CM the CCX will not be in control of the CTI RP.