cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
207
Views
3
Helpful
2
Replies

Could a router put in queue a caller waiting for an idle voice circuit?

EnriqueFornes
Level 1
Level 1

This is a theoretical question is for a college assignment. I'm just trying to see if the configuration for a contact center: a broadband FR access going to a router, going to 4 E1's, going to a PBX with ACD, going to a contact center has a bottleneck in the 4 E1's (120 DS0's). I mean, if the 120 voice circuits are in use and a new call arrives, can a router (which one?) put it in queue until a voice channel from the 4E1's is available, routing the new call through this channel to the PBX ACD in order to reach a live agent, or the caller will receive a busy tone (or go to a VM)?

Thanks, Kike.

2 Replies 2

paolo bevilacqua
Hall of Fame
Hall of Fame

Hi,

You can take the call from VoIP and place it in queue on the router. This could be done with B-ACD/AA queuing system. I think it can be configured (as it normally deals with CME's ephone-hunt) to be a frond-end for the ACD they have already.

Hope this helps, please rate post if it does!

Paolo, thanks for your prompt answer. I gave a look to the B.ACD/AA and I didn't find the answer. To be more specific, I want to connect international IP inbound calls to a router in building A, this router will be connected to 4 PSTN E1's (Europe) going to a PABX in building B, that host the ACD and distributes the calls to the contact center agents. Now, if the 120 DS0's (4 E1's) are in use and a new international IP inbound call arrives to the router in building A, he will not find a voice circuit to route the call to the PABX in building B, so it should send a busy tone to the caller. What I'm trying to see is, if the router in building A can place this new call in queue until a PSTN 64 kbps DS0 channel (from the 4 E1's) is available, routing this call through this channel to the PABX in building B in order to reach an agent, and how it should be configured. Hope my question is clearer. Thanks, Kike.