This is Kevin Kieller's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Kevin Kieller's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Kevin Kieller
Recent Activity
Image
Fog is just a cloud that is low enough to the ground. The trouble is because most of us live on the ground, it is the fog we see as our first cloud, for it is closest and within our... Continue reading
Posted Jan 18, 2011 at the UC Guys
Image
According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, integrating is "to form, coordinate, blend into a functioning or unified whole." However, the definition does not imply or promise that creating a "unified whole" is better, easier to use, saves money or makes anyone more... Continue reading
Posted Dec 29, 2010 at the UC Guys
@Syresh. I suggest you try www.snom.com support section. They have always been very responsive to any questions/issues I have had.
Kevin Kieller is now following Vince Griffin
Sep 8, 2010
Kevin Kieller is now following Mike Stacy
Sep 8, 2010
Mac, You are correct that Direct SIP introduces extra complexity but from my standpoint it is supportable and supported by both vendors so wortthy of strong consideration before going down CuciMOC or AES integration route. Not sure I agree that CS14 has less "usable" voice features as compared to Cisco or Avaya. I like this quote from Henry Ford “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." Microsoft with OCS decided not to make a faster horse but rather to invent the car. They handle voice (and other communication modalities) differently but from my experience, if the objective is to improve collaboration and productivity, OCS/CS14 does this better than a traditional VOIP PBX. As I understand it, Microsoft has a roadmap to add voice services into BPOS. Carriers are already doing this with BPOS-D (the dedicated version of BPOS). See technet ucoip link in original blog post for list. I do not think Microsoft will pursue BPOS linked into other call control providers. I don't think that would make business sense for them.
Toggle Commented Jul 16, 2010 on When VOIP/UC RFPs Fail at the UC Guys
Curtis, Good feedback. Perhaps I was overly zealous when I wrote "You cannot use OCS as a full-functioned soft phone while using another PBX (Cisco, Nortel, Avaya, Mitel, etc.) as the primary call controller”. Clearly when you use OCS for just IM and presence then you don't get all of the OCS voice and call control features. Some people seem to think that with CuciMOC and Avaya AES the audio path flows throw OCS -- this is not the case. With CuciMOC and AES you are using a Cisco desktop soft phone and an Avaya desktop soft phone respectively -- not OC. The VPN requirement you mention with CuciMOC is a perfect of example where I see customers expect they get the VPN-less ability OC provides as a soft phone -- which of course they don't (because as above they are really using a Cisco soft phone). In terms of CuciMOC support and Microsoft you provided a good link to the joint statement. For me this is Microsoft trying to "walk a fine line" in terms of supporting an API while not really liking what Cisco is doing. I think this post provides some further balance: http://blogs.technet.com/b/uc/archive/2009/12/03/cisco_3a00_-just-like-any-other-office-communications-server-isv_3f00_.aspx You correctly point out that in a Direct SIP environment OCS functions as a perfectly good soft phone, because with Direct SIP you really have two PBXs -- a traditional one and OCS as a PBX. And like two PBXs if you setup sim ring (or dual forking, or whatever you chosoe to call it) then both endpoints can ring. Of course to set this up you need to setup OCS voice services (and have the OCS Enterprise CALs) as opposed to with CuciMOC and AES where Cisco and Avaya promote that you only need the Standard CALs. From what I have seen, both between OCS and Cisco, OCS and Avaya/Nortel or even Cisco and Avaya/Nortel, Direct SIP is a "clean" and supportable integration. Kevin
Toggle Commented Jul 15, 2010 on When VOIP/UC RFPs Fail at the UC Guys
Mac, While the examples may be "beyond bizarre" they are, unfortuantely, from a real RFP. And this is the type of things that I see asked for by customers almost every week. I certainly believe that CuciMOC and AES are fine integrations with OCS; however, when with CuciMOC and AES you use OCS only for IM and presence, you should not expect to get any other OCS Enterprise Voice features. Really the theme of my post is "know what you need and what you are buying or you are likely to be dissatisfied". I would suggest that as the OCS platform evovles and especially as it becomes a full fledged voice and UC platform with the release of CS14, using OCS/CS for IM and presence and integrating it to another vendor's call control will make less and less sense and will propose more and more technical challenges. As an analogy, this would be like trying to integrate the Cisco CUPC IM desktop client with Avaya Call Manager or trying to integrate the Avaya One-X desktop client with Cisco Call Manager for call control -- maybe possible(?), but clearly technically challenging and likely not supported. I continue to believe that for a complete UC solution, "best of breed" using separate IM, presence and call control vendors is not the best approach. Kevin
Toggle Commented Jul 15, 2010 on When VOIP/UC RFPs Fail at the UC Guys
Image
Asking for an impossible combination of features in an RFP is a sure path to disappoint. And yet every week I see this in VOIP/UC RFPs. Presence status = Busy (facing ethical debate – is it wrong to say "yes"... Continue reading
Posted Jul 13, 2010 at the UC Guys
Image
For the past three days some industry "heavy hitters" have shared their organizations' visions and tried to capture the mindshare of the VoiceCon 2010 attendees and other communication professionals around the world. If you missed any of the keynotes you... Continue reading
Posted Mar 25, 2010 at the UC Guys
Image
Recently a large organization that was looking at deploying a unified communication solution for 43,000 people asked me to share some key lessons we have learned through other UC deployments. I thought I would share a quick version of the... Continue reading
Posted Mar 20, 2010 at the UC Guys
Image
Despite vendor assurances, you can not integrate every unified communication component with every other component. Presence status = Busy (trying to cram a square peg into a round hole) According to the "integration myth" espoused in the glossy marketing brochures... Continue reading
Posted Nov 22, 2009 at the UC Guys
Hi Mark, A few days before I wrote the above post I had just visited the Cisco offices and asked if a) they had CUCIMOC in their demo centre? b) if any of them had seen CUCIMOC? These were pretty senior people I was asking and the answer to both questions was "no". They had only seen a slide deck and a Powerpoint demo. I see on your blog (www.markturpin.org) you have posted some screen shots of the CUCIMOC install which is great. I would love to see what the interface looks like when you are able to sign into OCS. It will likely take me a while to get this setup in one of our labs so we can test it out. I still feel that this type of integration is likely to be hard for Cisco to keep up as Microsoft changes the OC client. For instance, the tab interface has changed in OCS R2 -- conspiracy theorists would suggest Microsoft did this to break this type of integration.