Application user controlled devices

Unanswered Question
Feb 4th, 2009

Is there any reason not to just associate all phones with some application users. For example the rmjtapi user for IPCC and the ACDeviceAuthenticationUser for Attendant Console. Is there a limit on the number of devices an application user can control?

I have this problem too.
0 votes
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 0 (0 ratings)
Loading.
Ayodeji oladipo... Wed, 02/04/2009 - 13:18

Jacob,

The rmjtapi user allows IPCCX to monitor the states of the phones that are associated with it. Usually these are agent phones, hence if you do not need to monitor a phone then I guess there will not be any need to associate the phone this user.

Likewise the ACDeviceAuthenticationUser Application User is used for Device Security

If you want to enable device security for the Cisco Unified Communications Manager Attendant Console, for example, you want to use a subset of phones instead of all phones that the super provider feature supports, you must configure an application user, ACDeviceAuthenticationUser, as well as associate the attendant phones with this application user.

Hope this helps

jacobmunson Thu, 02/05/2009 - 07:20

Thanks for the info however that wasn't quite what I was looking for. We change the phones that are used by IPCC and Attendant console so frequently that it has become a management problem to keep removing and adding the associated phones. So I am wondering if there is a down side to just associating all phones that are on our system to these users?

Jonathan Schulenberg Thu, 02/05/2009 - 08:04

Each JTAPI association consumes memory and there are platform limits. I don't have documentation in front of me but the general recommendation is not to add devices unnecessarily.

Actions

This Discussion