If you are using Cisco VOIP for 500+ users, I need your feedback

[novatech]

My company is moving several offices into one large building (1000+). I "manage" the phone system for the largest building. I have an Avaya Definity G3 with the latest version of everything but it's traditional PBX not VOIP.

The corporate office wants us to use VOIP. I met with Avaya and Cisco and have quotes from both. My manager wants me to contact the companies that were given to us as referrals but I'd rather talk to someone that isn't on Cisco and Avaya's "customer" list. It's easy to give a few good references.

I need all the pros and cons from people who have already implemented Cisco VOIP. I know most of the issues with Avaya's system. It looks like my manager is leaning towards Cisco and that makes me nervous because they don't provide any type of traditional PBX. Cisco's pricing is WAY under Avaya and I want to know why.

Here are a few things I'd like to know...

Did Cisco's quote match the final bill? How long did it take to implement? Were there any hidden costs? What features did your PBX have that Cisco doesn't? Please give me any and all comments, good or bad. I'd love to get some information about your company as well, number of employees, location, are you using VOIP on LAN only or WAN as well, etc.

Thanks in advance!!

 

[BuckWeet]

I must say, I think going Callmanager would be a bad thing for that scenario.. If you have a Definity now, you'll be sorry going to the CallManager. I implement both systems for customers, and must say Definity is definately the better product.

Reasons to not use Callmanager

1. Administration is a nightmare, by far the largest issue.
2. It doesn't nearly have the feature set needed by such a large number of people as you have.
3. Definately isn't as reliable as the traditional PBX (software bugs, etc.. are its problems)
4. Cisco Doesn't know voice like AVAYA


People will disagree with me since this is a Callmanager group. But like I said. I implement both systems and know the downfalls of each. Callmanager is severely lacking in so many areas, that I wouldn't even consider it in implementations such as yours.

BuckWeet

 

[maraxman]

I have to agree with BuckWeet. Too much has been said to this. Check the archive of this forum, there are many details mentioned.
It is not really cost saving to throw away traditional PBx and start to build new system on cisco.
My nightmare of the last days was upgrade from ccm version 3.2. to 3.3. it took 26 hours!! because of some inconsistecy of databaze, cisco technician did not restore data succesfully and we all lost them!! (by the backup application restore were succesful, but no data were in callmanager!) Luckily we have had data on subscriber and we could rewritte all data on upgraded publisher.
We will also move in new building, and thanks God, I am happy, that we will not have Call Manager there!

maraxman

T-Mobile CZ

 

[novatech]

Thanks to both of you for responding. I will check the archives for more information. Our network guys are dead set on using Cisco because they like the idea of having one vendor. This eliminates finger pointing when a problem arises.

I'll be the one administering the system so I'm very interested in problems that people are having.

Cisco's solution is blowing away Avaya's solution (cost wise) but it's hard to get an apples to apples comparison of the two. I have well over a million dollars worth invested in my current system and I'm choking on the idea of replacing the entire thing with an "IP only" solution.

 

[maraxman]

>Our network guys are dead set on using Cisco because they >like the idea of having one vendor.

This argument is their favorit. But are you using Cisco Network Adapter in your PC? No, and what about Cisco patch cords??
Important are the standards.

I am administrating Call Manager with only 180 stations, and I must say that administration from web pages is good aid, but for a really work the command line is the best. web is a slow and depends on Microsoft ISS.

an another tips are:
thread851-546529

 

[BuckWeet]

All I can say is, you'll be sorry, you know the power of definity right now. if you go callmanager, you'll regret it big time..


buckWeet

 

[novatech]

buckWeet,
I agree 100%. I met with my managers last night and tried to sell them on the fact that Cisco is strictly an IP solution and that isn't good.

Unfortunately, Cisco's quote for a brand new system came back 50% lower than Avaya's.

I'm interested in the problems you've had. In thread 851-546529 you listed a bunch of things that you had issues with (hunt groups, cov paths, cor/cos, etc). If you have time, can you give me more details on those problems?

Management was very interested in your comments and I need to know that I can create advanced hunt groups and multiple call appearances and all that good stuff. I don't want to tell a VP that he can't have his phone routed or answered the way he used to because we are using a different phone system. That won't go over well at all!!

 

[BuckWeet]

Hah, well the problem is they don't have those features.

hunt group on CCM is very basic, you know how on definity you can assign a coverage path for the hunt group, you can't do that on CCM, so when in a hunt group a call will get the phone being forwarded tos cover path.. you can't do any kind of advanced hunt groups.

Basically, I have user 4200 in my hunt group 5000, call comes in for 5000, CCM sends the call to 4200, that rings Busy N/A, extension 4200 cover path applies, not a cover path for 5000. So basically if you want it to forward to a hunt group mailbox, you need to dedicate a button for that hunt group, which stinks because cisco has very few buttons. the funny thing, the new IOS Telephony services does this feature just like definity, why doesn't CCM do it?

COR/COS is there, its jsut a hoaky way of doing it, and can be very when it comes to a large installation. Its not as easy as definity either..

There are no cover paths, only basic forwarding..

The system can scale to thousands of phones, but the system administration mindset wasn't built for thousands of phones.

The system does has its place, its great when you're deploying it to remote sites that have small users. This provides an unbeatable solution for the cost. Plus small sites don't usually need a lot of features.

I'll be glad to explain more if need be..


BuckWeet

 

[novatech]

Good info on the hunt group.

What have you found with vectors and announcements?

We have a lot of 800 numbers coming into the building and going through vectors.

Thanks.

 

[BuckWeet]

Ahah, vectors and announments, are you nutz?

You'd have to install the extra app of auto attendant, which depending on how many people you havin calling in, you'd need another server to handle this. Also the unity system could do it but that'd eat your voicemail ports up like crazy.

Another downfall I might add. Also to do any ACD or anything, you'll need another server to hand the ICD or IPCC software, which needs a desktop client utility installed to run..


BuckWeet

 

[novatech]

In other words, there is no basic ACD whatsoever?

 

[novatech]

BuckWheet,
I asked our vendor about the vectors and announcements and this is what he said:

Cisco Unity supports 99 different Call Handlers. These don't really associate equally to the Definity Vector but can roughly be thought of the same. You can send callers from one call handler to another, have a distinct set of inputs and call processing steps for each call handler.

It is possible to divide each call handler to get more than 99 but we have only needed to do this once.

There is no additional charge for this as it is included in the Unity Voice Mail.


I'm sure I'll want to quit before the end of this process. ;-)

 

[rezinz28]

Buckwheet,

I an very interested in your discussion points. From my knowledge I thought with IPCC you didn't have to use the desktop agent if you didn't need it or couldn't use it. I thought that it was just a CTI app. The user can still log into the IP Phone agent (Services button)for ACD routing. Also you mean to tell me that they don't have a supervised transfer on the hunt groups like they do in Unity? Also hasn't Unity changed to using virtual ports now? How can this play in this situation.

Novatech I would recommend having a get together with your vendor and a Cisco SE if you have one close to your location. If you don't I will ask my Cisco SE if there is one near you if you get me your zip code. From what I have seen with CCM I think it might fit your situation. If it is 50% less then Avaya I would at least double check the price and configuration. Do you already have an inline power infrastructure? One point SRST seems to provide a higher availability then Avaya's Media gateways. Avaya's media gateways have to reboot before they can use the local PSTN. I would also consider Shoreline's IP solution if you are having this much trouble deciding. Their solution is highly recommended as well.

Also Buckwheet can't Avaya at least stick to one product name. Didn't they dump the name Multivantage?
Steve

Thank You,
Steve

 

[dnc16]

I think Cisco is cheaper coming in the door, but more expensive in the end. I administer a 2000+ Option 81/Cisco
CM phone environment and integration of the 2 systems has been a nightmare, especially with Octel VM. Cisco insisted we get a new server, that had to meet their approval, to support music on hold. A $5000 server that only does MOH!
It picks up the PBX music source from the PBX through a sound card on the sever. Also I'm getting good at rebooting IP phones, say 5 to 10 a day! Worse thing is this install was done by Cisco and the problems still remain. I wouldn't wish this set up on anyone.

 

[AdmanOK]

I kind of feel obliged to put in my two cents worth at this point in time, even though I only have around 200 users and not over 500.... we deployed a Cisco Call Manager solution starting last December that replaced six existing PBX systems (2 Lucent Definitys, Lucent Magix, 2 Lucent Partners and a Toshiba Strata DK40) and the POTS lines at a seventh location. We went with all new Catalyst switches, new Cisco routers, two Call Managers at our main location and a new Cisco Unity VM server. Admittedly there was not integration with old hardware, this was a pull and replace job, but it has been running fantasticly! We now have four digit dialling between all seven of our locations, extension mobility lets our users access their calls no matter which office they might be sitting in and we even reduce our personnel count by one person through combining two receptionist positions once all the sites were integrated. I haven't had any problems with reliability or the administration requirements. We even have three of our sites running over VPN over the public internet, and one of them connected via an 802.11b wireless bridge, all of which the system copes with easily. I know this is only my experience, but I felt that it was worth sharing. Also, if I recall correctly, the final cost came in slightly below the original quote, but I did not deal directly with Cisco, but went through SBC's Datacom group. If you have any specific questions I'd be happy to provide more details.

 

[novatech]

AdmanOK,
I don't want to come across as though I think the Cisco IP system won't work. I have no doubt that a new system with all new servers is going to be nice and will work well. I'm just concerned about the features (basic or advanced) that I could be losing that are critical to my users. Hunt group capabilites are crucial, COR/COS is also crucial when you have a large number of users (1000+). My coverage paths are extensive as well.
Besides the importance of advanced features, our new building with have multiple floors that are secure. I can't use an IP system in secure areas so I must use PBX(s). If my PBX(s) can't connect to my IP system I won't be able to do 4 digit dialing between floors. What a mess that will be.
I'm still relatively new to IP so I don't know what the hurdles are. I'm worried about connecting my PBX to the IP system.
I know that you are happy with the Cisco solution but can you tell me what features, if any, you don't have with Call Manager that you used to have with the Avaya PBX's?

 

[rezinz28]

Novatech,

The hunt group capability will work if you use IPCC express or Enterprise (determined by the number of agents). Why can't you use IP Telephony for a secure sight? I think you should have Cisco come in and demo your design for you. Don't forget that Cisco's support is top notch. Also Cisco is devoting huge amounts of dollars to CCM and is going to acheive all the features that you will probably need if they aren't already in CCM.

Steve

Thank You,
Steve

 

[novatech]

I have no doubt that Cisco will achieve all of features I need eventually. I am definitely not opposed to their solution but I don't want to make more work for myself if they can't do what is crucial to our users now.
We are a government contractor with SCIFs. We are bound by strict regulations for sensitive information. IP is a huge no-no in SCIFs.
I currently have 3 Definity G3s in my building and they would be used in the secure areas of the new building. I don't know if we would be "allowed" to connect them to the Cisco Call Managers. If we can, will the Avaya systems and the Call Managers interact? Can I do 4 or 5 digit dialing between the two systems?
I plan on meeting with Cisco again to ask all of these questions. I'm very interested in hearing what current Call Manager users are going through so I can ask the right questions.
I am not familiar with IPCC express or Enterprise. Sorry for my lack of knowledge. If you have time to explain it I'd like to understand what that is.
Thanks.

 

[BuckWeet]

Yes you can do QSIG between the 2 systems. If you have CM 1.3 (R11) you can do IP trunking between the 2 systems. There were previous H.323 issues before R11 though. As for features that you're looking for, stick with the definity and just go R11 or something to give you your IP capabilities. CCM is very lacking in the hunt group. To do IPCC would cost tons of money just to give you basic features the definity has. As well as there are no coverage path capabilites. CCM just has basic call forwarding. Also with CM 1.3 you can do IP media encryption so you could use this in your secure areas. If you wanted to do a total IP solution with definity you can migrate to the S8700 system. Its really a slick solution. Just got done doin a 1.3 upgrade today myself.

just to let you know, multivantage/communication manager (CM) is R11 of definity, with a new name.


I say this stuff because I know both systems. I design, install and support both solutions. each has its plus and minuses. definity is definately the better solution right now. If it were up to me and my pick for you, I say CM 1.3 riding on S8700 media server with a Cisco infrastructure.

When you have the need to roll out a bunch of remote sites that only need a few phones, then CCM is the better solution. You can't beat its price point, for all you need a remote site is a router that does SRST, phones, and a powered ethernet switch.. To do this with AVAYA, it requires you to have a S8700/8300 server at the headend, then a G700 with 8300 server acting as an LSP at the remote sites. This is awfully expensive when all you need if 10 phones or so.


BuckWeet

 

[iptuser]

We are also looking at CM and Avaya after dismissing Siemens,Nortel and Mitel.
Cisco- not many features- this will be resolved in the new version 4.0 - call forward internal, external etc coverage groups- giving each extension their own hunt group- manager, sec. voice mail paths etc. How have you guys rolled out SRST in CM 3.2 or below. We find an issue with SRST- using locations CAC. If you have remote site with 5 Voice links across WAN then Cisco did not reserve any links until call connect whch resulted in 10 calls being offered all with ringing but only the first 5 will be connected the other 5 will get NU. The newer version of CM 3.3 resolves this by allocating the links on call set up as in normal TDM.

SRST- Great for small sites but for large sites not so good due to the lack of features in WAN failure also if the CM in a centralise roll out is off the air or even if the central sites loses its own WAN link then no other remote site can call each other using WAN they all have to go via PSTN/CO. On a noraml Router 36xx upto 190-ish users Avaya upto 4500 using a stack of 10 x 8300 with LSP

Switchboard ARC-The is not feature to barge in to calls or to supervisor observe- they mention using Instant messaging instead. Also how they send calls to each operator seems strange. Each operator can see calls in the Q but they have to actually select each call rather then in the normal TDM world where they are offered to each operator as in an ACD world. This can get in to a situation where you have a lazy operator not picking up any calls.

I know you can have multiple CM`s but I thought the aim of IP wa to make admin. easier- one server, one upgrade, one IT team etc



Avaya

The new verison Rel 2.0 will resolve the rebooting of the LSP, also in LSP mode even if the 870-0 or the WAN link is down at the central site all the other sites can still call each other over the WAN.

I admit Cisco Dev. path is large but that because they have to dev. so much, you ask Avaya and they will look at you in a strange way since they don`t need to dev. anything.

The most inportant question though is what looks good on your CV. Do a search on jobserve.co.uk for IPT cisco and IPT Avaya and see the number of Cisco jobs

wayne