I ran in to an interesting situation the other week that I was able to work around, and was considering trying this approach in reverse.
My scenario the other week is that we needed to be able to forward calls from a CallManager to a legacy Voicemail system on a Centrex network. Since we had a PRI to the Centrex network, I was able to enable delivery of RDNIS and calls CFNAd/CFBd from a phone to the Centrex network were delivered to the proper mailbox on the legacy voicemail system.
I am interested in doing a similar thing, except this time in reverse:
This time around, we have a Unity 4.0(3) system that needs to be the voicemail system for both a CallManager and a Fujitsu 9600 PBX. Integration between CallManager and the Fujitsu will be via PRI (the CallManager side emulating network-side NI-2) so once again we will be able to carry RDNIS. Assuming the Fujitsu is capable of delivering us RDNIS, we should be able to CFNA/CFB callers from Fujitsu phone directly to the right mailbox on a Unity system without fussing with analog integration.
Assuming this works (and I have yet to prove this out, but I am pretty confident it would; anyone have experiences to the contrary?) my concern shifts to MWI. If I deploy Unity as a single-homed system, it will of course send MWIs out to the CallManager. CallManager will not recognize Fujitsu subscribers, thus no MWI for Fujitsu. I need a SMDI interface to the Fujitsu.
So my thought was to install Unity as a dual integration system, but not actually install or configure any TDM ports to directly integrate Unity to the Fujitsu. On the Subscriber itself, I would of course choose the actual switch the user is homed off of. If it is a CallManager user, Unity would light the IP Phone MWI lamp. If it is a Fujitsu user, Unity would use SMDI to tell the Fujitsu to light the MWI lamp.
The only obvious obstacle I can see to this approach would be if the customer wanted to use Unity as their AutoAttendant; if someone tried to transfer to a Fujitsu subscriber, I am presuming this would fail since there are 0 ports to do so. But in this particular case, the customer has no requirement to perform this functionality.
So in summary, I want to dual-integrate without completely dual-integrating. Is this too far in left field, or is anyone else trying anything like this? My thought is that with circuits that can carry the needed fields in place between the PBXs, why add additional circuits and complexity?
Input welcome, particularly from anyone on the Unity Team.
I'm not able to access my old voice mail messages all of a sudden. The recording says something like 'the message is currently not available'. This has never happened before in all the years I have been using this system. I have t...
If you have 2 ISR routers, one acting as Failover, do we need to have both the same number of SRST licenses on the 2 routers?
No. You will only need the SRST licenses on the primary router. Because this feature...
You have reached the Cisco Logistics Support Center.. To Check Status of your RMA, visit Product Returns & Replacements (RMA).
Need help? Contact us by Phone or Email.
Phone: 1800 553 2447 Option 4