Difference between Cisco CVP and Cisco IP IVR

Unanswered Question
Oct 23rd, 2008

Hello All,

Kindly furnish the below discussion on

Difference between Cisco CVP and Cisco IP IVR.

I have this problem too.
4 votes
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 0 (0 ratings)
Loading.
mikram Fri, 10/24/2008 - 02:26

Hi

CVP provides IVR treatment at the Edge of enterprise network, moves call across IP network toll bypass. CVP provides centralized call control and reporting via ICME. It is used for self service and prompts and queuing. It is product and solution as well.

cheers

Ikram

Chris Deren Fri, 10/24/2008 - 06:07

To expend on previos excellent post, CVP utilizes voice gateways for playing prompts, collecting digits/speech, queueing so that the call does not need to traverse the WAN to cetrelized IVR system. The great benefit of this is saving bandwidth. IP-IVR is a centrelized IVR solution and if you desired local queuing at each remote site you would need multiple IP-IVR systems. I personally like both solutions and depending on requirements would propose either one as it fits.

Chris

mikram Fri, 10/24/2008 - 06:18

Thanks Chris for elaborating it. CVP 7.0 has video capability and some nice feature. Have a look at SRND for CVP 7.0

Good Luck

Ikram

Chris Deren Fri, 10/24/2008 - 06:20

Correct, not sure how big the market for video contact center is currently, I at least have not seen the interest.

Either way I am in the middle of implemting 2 large CVP 7.0 deployments, and I have to admit it's come a long way from the previous versions.

Chris

mikram Fri, 10/24/2008 - 07:09

Chris,

Would be nice to hear from you the nature of CVP 7.0 . What sort of components are used in this deployment and what sort of market does it cater for. I still see most of people on CVP 4.0 and not keen in migrating to CVP 7.0. Unless, it is green field deployment.

Cheers

Ikram

Chris Deren Fri, 10/24/2008 - 07:17

One deployment is for a customer with existing CVP 3.1, instead of an upgrade we are implmenting new CVP 7 infastructure with new CM cluster using SIP. The customer has ~100 existing locations on CVP 3.1 that will be converted to this new environmnet. 6 CVP combo servers will be used, two CUPS SIP Procy servers, 9 node CM cluster.

The other customer is implementing new CVP environemnt with SIP for a busy centrelized contact center, there are no IPCC agents in this environment but rahter self service apps, and Aspect ACD integration. Seperate voice gateways are using for ingress/VXML/egress gateways, 2 combo CVP servers and 2 CUPS SIP Proxy servers are used as well.

Chris

mikram Fri, 10/24/2008 - 07:22

Thanks Chris, must be interested to find out how did it go . What version of IOS will be using on vg's and any Media servers?

Good Luck.

Cheers

Ikram

Chris Deren Fri, 10/24/2008 - 07:29

Planning on utilizing soon to arrive 12.4.15T8, as T7 has some DTMF issues. The first customer has 2 dedicated media servers, the second will utilize the combo servers for media as well.

I have complete mockup of the first environemnt in my lab, works fine, I am using sip.sigDigits field to strip of site code in order to better control which VXML GW calls get delivered to when originated via IP phones. You can use sendtooriginator field in most cases, but that does not address IP originated calls as I want it.

Chris

Chad Stachowicz Tue, 11/04/2008 - 10:57

Double down on that one, I am run DSPWARE ES on all my T7's already for these issues..

Chad

fabien.damien Mon, 06/22/2009 - 08:56

Hi Chris,

i think you would need multiple cvp's if you want to do local queuing at each site as well. correct me if i am wrong.

Awaiting your feedback,

Chris Deren Wed, 06/24/2009 - 14:30

Fabien,

You are wrong, the whole purpose of CVP solution is to provide distributed local queueing, etc. You will need local voice VXML GW at each one of these sites to provide prompt playing, queueing, but the servers are centrelized.

HTH,

Chris

Chris Deren Fri, 10/23/2015 - 05:01

Want IVR system collects dtmf digits, so both CVP and IPIVR can do it.

Actions

This Discussion