Cisco Support Community
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users might experience few discrepancies in Search results. We are working on this on our side. We apologize for the inconvenience it may have caused.
New Member

CTI Route Point CSS

I am redesigning the partitions and calling search spaces we currently use in CUCM and UCCX 5.0. I want to move all of the CTI ports into a partition that the phones are not able to see so I can free up the DN’s the ports are using. I know the CTI ports need to be having a calling search space that can see the agent’s phones but do the CTI Route Points that control the application need to have a calling search space that can see the CTI ports? If not do the ports need to be seen by any calling search space?

VIP Super Bronze

Re: CTI Route Point CSS

What you want to accomplish isn't going to happen due to a quirky CTI rule. Both the CTI Route Point and Port need to be available in the calling party's CSS (e.g. gateway, trunk, or phone). This is because the Call Redirect performed on the CTI Route Point actually uses the original calling party's CSS to find the CTI Port. You can hide the ICD extensions but not the CTI Ports.

You may also want to read this thread for ideas surrounding dial plan design with CCX:

New Member

Re: CTI Route Point CSS

Is this in a document I can reference?

Cisco Employee

Re: CTI Route Point CSS

I guess it depends on the call direction a bit. A caller doesn't have to call a Outbound Dialer Port normally, but it does need to reach an IVR port.

For example with IPIVR where an agent dials the CTI RP to go to the script. IPIVR will select an available CTI Port from its list and send a redirect request to CUCM. The caller will then be redirected to that CTI Port by CUCM. In more technical CUCM terms there will be a new digit analysis from the original calling party to the new port. So here the calling party's CSS - ingress GW/IP Phone - needs to be able to reach the IPIVR CTI Port(s).

I hope this helps! I'm not sure about a document around this, but I can assure you that Jonathan's comment is correct.



Re: CTI Route Point CSS

If the idea is to potentially use the same extension numbers for agent phones and for CTI ports, then that is a very bad idea. UCCX needs to control both, and it uses only the extension number to identify which device it is controlling. The JTAPI link used to control these devices does not have awareness of partitions. An overlap between CTI port and agent phone extensions would likely cause major issues.

CreatePlease to create content