UC Technologies - Recent Threads

Re: What Kind of Organization Will Benefit From Using A Centralized Mediation Server Rather Than Just VoIP Gateways in Implementing UC?

rbennett — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 20:33:54 GMT

There are a few questions here:

Why do I need a mediation server?
Is a VoIP GW a substitue for a mediation server?
What are the benefits of centralized Mediation Servers vs. distributed ones?
Can I carry SIP/RTP all the way to the service provider network edge without a gateway?

Why do I need a Mediation Server?

When the Mediation Server was first conceived (2005), there was a significant gap between the abilities of most PBXs/VoIP Gateways and OCS: e.g. few vendors supported TCP as a SIP transport, much less TLS, which is the preferred OCS SIP transport. A fuller explanation can be found here. Many gateway vendors have closed these gaps and Lync now provides 'media bypass' for calls being placed from inside the corporate network that are now carried on G.7xx codecs: this obviates the need to transcode to RT Audio (however, note that roaming calls still need RT Audio). Therefore with Lync, Mediation Server is only required for PBX interoperability and for some gateway signaling intermediation and to provide a 'trust boundary' to which the Lync client can securely connect.

Is a VoIP Gateway a substitute for a Mediation Server?

Some VoIP Gateways have gone a long way towards replacing the Mediation Server (see above). Survivable Branch Appliance gateways actually have a Mediation Server on board. Note that the Mediation Server image is included with the Lync FE server, so you save deploying a box but get the capabilities of the software when you need it. Also note that for PBX systems that have been verified in the Open Interoperability Program, there is no need for a Gateway, but a Mediation Server is required.

What are the benefits of centralized Mediation Servers vs. distributed ones?

The same benefits of any centralized resource vs. a local one. Note that if transcoding is required (i.e. a telephony to Lync call where the Lync call leg is 'roaming' [e.g. working at home]) then the Mediation Server must be co-located with the Gateway. If the Gateway is a central resource, then Mediation Server can also be centralized. However, if the Gateway is a distributed resource (e.g. branch office based in a 'least cost routing' scheme) then Mediation Server must be local: this can be achieved with a Survivable Branch Appliance in most cases.

Can I carry SIP/RTP all the way to the service provider network edge without a gateway?

Any Service Provider SIP Trunk that is certified in the Open Interoperability Program does not need a gateway. Otherwise, the Gateway will be required due to the interoperablity challenges that are encountered with many SIP Trunk services.

Re: What Kind of Organization Will Benefit From Using A Centralized Mediation Server Rather Than Just VoIP Gateways in Implementing UC?

arosenberg — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 17:00:31 GMT

This from Alec Spyrou 11/18/2010 5:58:57 PM

As with many others this has been a challenge for us for some time. How do we ensure that we have some control over the bandwidth used from multiple endpoints that are now mobile capable?

I would appreciate hearing from the folk on here.

Some background. We are well progressed in what we have called our Collaboration strategy. This started back in 2007 and we saw UC as just one of te latter parts of that collaboration strategy which encompassed Web, real-time, message based and UC leading into CEBP.

We are well progressed on that journey and are in the latter phases of message based (90% complete), realtime (75% complete) and UC (70% complete). These are the platform building phases that lead us to CEBP. We have voicemail and video conferencing left to complete in the platform building phase before we move into CEBP. CEBP will need a lot of prep work before we are ready to deploy in this phase.

Re: What Kind of Organization Will Benefit From Using A Centralized Mediation Server Rather Than Just VoIP Gateways in Implementing UC?

artr — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 23:43:53 GMT

Migrating Enterprise Telephony Networks for Microsoft’s Lync UC

By Art Rosenberg

Microsoft’s launch of its Lync Server 2010 on November 17, 2010 will trigger great enterprise IT activity in UC implementation planning. In addition to the basic enterprise Lync Server, Microsoft has also developed a Survivable Branch Appliance (SBA) for Lync, which will enable a branch location to continue using Lync capabilities if disconnected from the enterprise network.

While operational business benefits of multimodal unified communications (UC) can be identified through specific operational “use cases” of an enterprise, the migration from existing TDM and PSTN network infrastructures to IP Telephony and SIP trunking infrastructure must also be carefully planned from an implementation and maintenance cost perspective. Accordingly, UCStrategies.com will be hosting a new forum to discuss real-world issues that enterprise organizations should consider in implementing IP Telephony networking in a centralized and virtual UC network environment.

While IP Telephony will still be location-based in terms of desktop equipment and network connectivity, management and control will move to network and software-based solutions. This will include not only traditional person-to-person communication applications (phone calls, messaging, IM, conferencing, etc.), but also integration of third-party business process applications communicating with individual end users at desktops and mobile endpoint devices (smartphones, tablets, iPads, etc.) under the label of Communications Enabled Business processing (CEBP).

Integrating Tomorrow’s Telephony For “Multimodal” UC

The telecom industry has had a hard time explaining the concept and benefits of “UC,” primarily because telephony is no longer the only or even primary mode of communication contact with people. This is especially true for wireless mobility, where individual end users will dynamically require the flexibility of multimodal communications to efficiently communicate under a variety of personal circumstances. Even for employees dedicated to handling customer contacts (call centers), the need for UC flexibility will still be generated by mobile customers and business partners.

As the big enterprise application players move into UC, i.e., Microsoft, IBM, etc., they are driving the need for new telephony integrations and media mediation that legacy phone systems didn’t deal with. Accordingly, enterprise network infrastructures will be faced with the need to accommodate such functionality with technology that is both cost-efficient and easily operational manageable. The traditional approach of “gateways” to handle diverse network interconnectivity has been expanded to incorporate more intelligent functionality and simplified, software-based, remote “virtual” management.

The Application “Eggs” Or The Network “Chickens?”

There has always been a question of anticipating network capacity requirements to support communication traffic. In a UC environment, where modalities can be dynamically changed or escalated from asynchronous messaging to real-time connections for voice or video (“click-to-call”) the problem becomes greater and requires the flexibility that IP communications supports. So, getting the enterprise networks ready for multimodal UC and CEBP will demand that IT be well prepared with a cost-effective network solution to support such flexibility.

Inasmuch as UC technologies are still evolving and not all the standards have been defined, there is little experience available within most enterprise IT departments to provide practical guidelines for UC migration implementations. That is why the industry technology providers are trying to reach out to IT management to help them understand the implementation and support needs of UC vs. traditional telephony systems. They are absolutely not the same!

So, while business management has to define their operational UC “use cases” and ROI priorities, in terms of identifying what communication modalities and applications are required by which end users and end point devices, IT’s responsibility is to take care of associated network connectivity needs between branch locations, the PSTN (which is not going away overnight), and the Internet.

Stay Tuned For Our Forum on UC Networking Migration Issues

The latter need will be the focus of the UCStrategies Forum, sponsored by NET, who has announced a new platform for simplifying the networking and mediation needs of existing telephony switches and new UC platforms like Microsoft’s Lync Server 2010 and Survivable Branch Appliance, that can interoperate or even replace legacy or IP PBX systems. The UC migration dilemma is complex and every enterprise organization has investments to protect or maximize in implementation planning.

To be notified by email when a new issue has been raised and/or answered, please sign up for our UC Alerts, which will give you a direct link to that item.

What Kind of Organization Will Benefit From Using A Centralized Mediation Server Rather Than Just VoIP Gateways in Implementing UC?

artr — Thu, 25 Nov 2010 19:23:58 GMT

Everyone recognizes that flexible multimodal communications supported by UC will still require efficient consolidation and management of network access. Given that the market is still migrating from legacy TDM telephony networks and the PSTN, what solutions are available for bridging the network gaps at the enterprise or service provider levels?

Re: Can End-users Make or Break the Success of a UC Implementation?

bill.seybolt — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 21:42:51 GMT

You have to identify people in your organization who can serve as advocates to help lead the change. You also have to identify those who are resistors who may derail the project. The human element must be taken into consideration just as much as what technology you are using.

We're preparing for deployment in August-September? Any chance I could get a copy or link to the paper?

Can End-users Make or Break the Success of a UC Implementation?

pavila — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 18:00:44 GMT

I just finished working with Plantronics on a white paper about the importance of end-user acceptance. Of course, it included a discussion on end-points overall - particularly relating to ease of use. And it set me to wondering about the challenge this presents to IT departments that are now generally responsible for UC decisions and implementations. Not to mention those traditional VARs who have evolved to UC "solutions integrators"....

New technology is great as long as it is used by those it is supposed to help. But people are generally resistive to change - even in the workplace. So how important are end-points in the world of UC? Do too many vendors give lip service to "ease of use" but deliver "I can't figure this out and I've read the manual 4 times"?

Re: Virtualization - I don't get it

paul.leatherman — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 03:57:24 GMT

Tom, your post doesn't make sense. "meet the objectives of virtualization products with appliances that can't be virtualized!"

You have tangible benefits like server reduction, rack space, power, and cooling as well as the benefits Dave pointed out with flexible deloyment, backups, snapshots, labs, upgrades, etc...

Re: Why are gateways required in a Microsoft UC Solution?

suresh_tatavarthy — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 20:01:22 GMT

Hi Dave - With wave 14, the mediation server role changes. Microsoft has done a fantastic job of integrating the HQ and branch office to provide branch offices with survivability features. The 1:1 mapping of mediation server to a gateway is now something of the past. A mediation server can communicate with multiple gateways.

The mediation server is now collocated with Front end server. There are additional features added. For example, the mediation server can support "Media bypass". Under some circumstances, the mediation server removes itself from the media path to reduce need for transcoding and for reducing hairpinning situations.

Because of the many to many mapping of the mediation server and the gateway, load balancing features are built into the system that offers organizations reduced TCO.

So, Dave the mediation server does not go away but the architecture is changed.

Re: How important a role do you see mobility playing in the overall move to UC?

billyoung — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:13:44 GMT

Tom you make a good argument for the demise of traditional desk phones but the enterprise will still require capabilities to facilitate services such as conferencing, accounting, recording, presence, directory, voice mail etc that the distributed architecture of UC supports, be it enterprise based or hosted. So a “pure cellular” solution will still need to integrate with the enterprise communications environment and allow for the management of these mobilized services. That is really the role of mobile UC; extend the enterprises services to the mobile and allow the enterprise to manage them.

Re: How important a role do you see mobility playing in the overall move to UC?

billyoung — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:12:01 GMT

The historically low take rate on mobile UC has been due to the complexity of deployment and a less than friendly user interface of mobile UC’s predecessor FMC. FMC required a dual mode smartphone, a client, and voice grade WLAN. This is a relatively complex undertaking for enterprise IT groups which puts them in the position of running a miniature cellular network, and of course the user experience was more complicated than just making a simple call. Another big factor in the sluggish uptake was the fact that the mobile operator was really not involved, thus their was no leverage of the intelligence of the modern mobile network. The latest generation of mobile UC aka FMC which Sprint ,Tango and NET have launched, transparently extends the mobile UC capabilities to the cellular phone. The result is that any existing or future Sprint mobile can be used as an extension of the UC/PBX system. No dual mode smartphone or specialized client is required and no impact on the WLAN. It is simple to deploy and works exactly as the existing phone; no learning curve.

Re: How important a role do you see mobility playing in the overall move to UC?

tom.levy — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 04:04:19 GMT

The question is posed wrong. The question should be does UC have any role other than mobility and isn't the answer just a to get everyone a cell phone? CFOs are already paying for most cell phones and with the money they save by throwing out the PBX, phones, and landlines - they can pay for everyone's cell phone and still come out ahead.

Evolution: PBX --> UC --> Pure Cellular (4G)

There is absolutely no need for an organization to have a phone system any more - what 4 digit dialing? Yeah right.

Re: What Infrastructure

shel.brooks — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 17:21:36 GMT

I am excited about the prospect of the open cloud and telephony. I currently run Asterisk on multiple instances at Amazon for R&D testing. With low CPU usage and networking usage (testing only) it costs me a couple bucks a day. I've modeled moving production systems to the cloud, but the costs and networking options are not quite there yet. I figure it won't be much longer though. If I could set up point to point circuits to EC2 and get a slightly lower price from Amazon, it would make sense. Can't be much longer. Hopefully MS Azure will force Amazon to lower prices. I think EC2 will generate more revenue for Amazon than its webstore does in just a few years.

Re: Virtualization - I don't get it

tom.levy — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 17:12:13 GMT

One of the key benefits of virtualization is to reduce hard servers. But the goal should be to reduce overall servers (hard and soft) - since OCS requires so many servers it doesn't fit well into a virtualization conversation. Anyone looking to reduce servers should be looking at simple appliances like the ShoreTel products. Yes, appliances can't be virtualized, but they are a lot less work and meet the objectives of virtualization projects with a lot less effort and money.

How important a role do you see mobility playing in the overall move to UC?

mfinneran — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 14:07:57 GMT

While every speech and article on UC makes reference to the importance of mobility, the take rate of the current UC mobility capabilities appears to be minimal. What's missing in those offerings that could put mobility in the center of users' UC planning?

Re: Virtualization - I don't get it

dave — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 05:38:24 GMT

VIrtualization offers huge benefits around resource management - don't think of it as server savings. By virtualizing your UC server, you can add/subtract resources (processor, memory, and storage) easily without downtime. You can also backup (replicate) environments with additional virtual (or real) servers at the same or a remote site. Don't think of it as server savings - it is part of voice/data convergence - the operational level.

Re: Virtualization - I don't get it

dana.bradshaw — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 21:14:28 GMT

Matt - Microsoft OCS doesn't support virtualized implementations (as a solution - only some non real time server roles can be virtualized).

VIrtualization makes a lot sense from redundancy environment because two virtual environments can provide redundancy on the same or different virtual clusters.

Virtualization - I don't get it

dean.higgins — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 20:53:04 GMT

There seems to so much hype about virtualization. I can buy a basic server for about $3000 - complete installed - one time cost. My VMware servers are technically less expensive but require more ongoing care and feeding. Assuming both are equal in support of real time applications, which is a real leap as well - why bother putting UC servers on a virtual machine. Makes no sense to me.

Re: Why are gateways required in a Microsoft UC Solution?

dave — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 19:49:14 GMT

With Wave 14, the mediation server formerly goes away.

Why are gateways required in a Microsoft UC Solution?

admin — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:00:11 GMT

Brenda Perea

Posted: Tuesday, June 16, 10:54 AM

Joined: 12/11/2007
Posts: 6

Posted March 9, 2009

Brenda Perea--Why are gateways required in a Microsoft UC Solution?

NET--Gateways are needed to integrate with legacy networks and telephony equipment. Microsoft UC passes VoIP traffic between desktops without requiring any other modification to the corporate IP network. It does not, however, provide any connectivity to PBXs and/or external service provider networks. Its connectivity to IP PBXs and IP-based service providers is also limited to a small number of vendors and requires specific recent releases of those vendors’ products. Few if any companies, however, want to completely rip and replace their entire telecom infrastructure at one time. A Microsoft UC deployment is typically first implemented in a particular targeted area of the business where it will deliver the greatest ROI – and then rolled out to other areas in successive stages. Moreover, as providers compete with each other and offer different pricing incentives, the rules about which voice traffic goes where will likely change over time. Companies therefore find it prudent, if not and necessary, to implement a third-party VoIP solution that integrates Microsoft UC into existing non-Microsoft telecom infrastructure as a way to flexibly switch voice traffic originating from Microsoft UC users to multiple networks as required at any given time.

David Yedwab--What’s NET’s value proposition in the Microsoft OCS UC equation?

NET--Microsoft UC is a powerful platform for increasing staff productivity, improving responsiveness to business problems and opportunities, and reducing operating costs. But, the right gateway architecture is needed in order to fully realize those gains.

NET’s VX Series and Quintum Series switches and Gateways are significantly differentiated from commodity VoIP gateways in ways that make them particularly suitable for the challenges associated with Microsoft UC implementation. Key attributes of the VX Series solution include: Suitability for diverse telecom environments, remote office survivability, VoIP security and Active Directory integration. NET VX and Quintum Series switches provide many other capabilities that make them especially suitable for Microsoft UC deployments – including link quality management, support for consolidation of UM voice mailboxes, and music/message-on-hold functionality. In summary, NET’s VoIP switches and gateways minimize implementation challenges and enable companies to fully leverage Microsoft UC’s rich functionality for maximum business benefit.

Brenda Perea--Can you go into depth on the value prop differentiators?

NET--The VX Series’ Any-to-Any MultiPath architecture (along with its built-in SIP to SIP mediation) provides full connectivity between Microsoft UC users on an IP network and any other telecom infrastructure – including PBXs and IP PBXs – without requiring additional hardware or reconfiguration of existing devices. NET VX Series switches include built-in SIP survivability functionality that ensures continuity of basic calling functions on SIP phones in remote offices even in the event of an OCS failure – or in the event that IP network connectivity to a UC server in a central location fails. VX Series switches also implement a broad range of encryption protocols, including TLS for signaling security and SRTP for media security – as well as IPSec, SCIP, and MD5 Authorization. And unlike other hardware solutions that compromise performance when using encryption, VX Series switches encrypt at wire speed. VX Series switches allow programmable call control to be driven by telephony data from Microsoft Active Directory and LDAP servers. AD integration opens up a universe of possibilities for rules-based call routing – including the programming of failover scenarios that direct calls to users’ cell phones in the event that LAN/WAN connections to UC desktops are down. It also allows the VX switch to determine whether a call should be routed directly to a user’s phone or via an OCS Server to a UC desktop.

David Yedwab--What lessons did Avanade learn from its own OCS R2 deployment?

NET--Avanade learned that the projections for hard and soft cost savings appear to be pretty accurate. That network savings, travel displacement and other hard cost avoidance can be substantial. A roadmap to get to the end-state needs to be developed and organizational buy-in is essential.

Brenda Perea--What is your definition of UC?

NET--UC is communications integrated to optimize business processes. UC integrates real-time and non-real time communications with business processes and requirements based on presence capabilities, presenting a consistent unified user interface and experience across multiple devices and media types. In other words UC is communications integrated to optimize business processes. UC breaks down today’s silos of communications. Done right it’s really one application with a supporting rules engine that unites such diverse communications components as presence, messaging (i.e., IM, email, voice, video) and collaboration modes (i.e., voice, data, video telephony, A/V/Web conferencing and information sharing apps) with business processes, business applications and directories in a way that provides a common user experience regardless media type or device used be it hard phone, softphone or mobile.

David Yedwab--Including Avanade’s experiences, what’s the quickest most effective path to ROI in a UC deployment?

NET--In this economy the quickest route to ROI hinges on hard the cash savings associated with protecting, extending and leveraging your existing telecom investment while driving down telecom costs. SIP trunking (supported by OCS R2) provides businesses with a painless first step and a seamless migration path to VoIP. It enables businesses to leverage their bandwidth investments by sharing voice and data traffic. Businesses gain the cost savings and flexibility associated with VoIP without having to purchase a new telecom system. SIP trunking is a scalable and affordable alternative to traditional dial tone - offering local, long distance, toll free and international calling at very low rates. Putting Office Communicator (OC) clients on PCs will leverage VoIP to drive down local, long distance and cellular costs. Additionally, OCS LiveMeeting and A/V/Web conferencing capabilities drive away outsourced conferencing charges.

This doesn’t mean that companies should write off productivity gains. Far from it, staying nimble is especially important in this environment as companies are forced to compete with fewer resources. And where will companies get the best productivity ROI today? It’s in UC-BB – UC for business. That’s where you’re making UC an integral part of your collaboration strategy. It’s the concept of having context, presence and click to communicate embedded within your business processes. Now, communications-enabling a business processes is difficult because established practices, generally, are deeply entrenched, and changing them requires changing behavior. In some cases, it also requires changing the business process itself. If done well, however, it will lead to soft cost reductions, increased employee productivity and job satisfaction, tighter connections with customers, suppliers and partners, faster decision making and time to market, increased supply chain intimacy and competitive advantages.

Posted March 11, 2009

David Yedwab--I understand the need for gateways for connectivity to the PSTN and legacy gear. If I were trying to budget for a UC implementation, for about 1000 users across 5 locations with 5 legacy PBXes. What percentage of my OCS deployment budget needs to be set aside for NET or Quintum gateways?

Posted March 13, 2009

Art Rosenberg--It's not just Microsoft's UC solution that needs gateways. Any UC platform or communication application that starts to exploit IP Telephony, VoIP, and SIP connectivity will need gateways for the same reason. That is, person-to-person voice connectivity through the PSTN.

Blair Pleasant

Posted: Tuesday, June 23, 3:11 PM

Joined: 1/2/2007
Posts: 14

I'm still trying to understand some of the technologies needed for a total UC solution. How do you know when you need a gateway, and what should enterprises be looking for when selecting a gateway vendor and/or product?

Suresh Tatavarthy

Posted: Tuesday, June 30, 4:59 PM

Joined: 6/30/2009
Posts: 2

Good question on how to select a good gateway vendor and the product. A typical UC solution includes a client component, server components, and voice network that includes integration with PSTN and PBX systems. In the case of Microsoft OCS 2007 R2, the client is the Microsoft Office Communicator. There are several servers defined as server roles.

Microsoft OCS allows users to make and receive calls from the public switched telephony network (PSTN) through the use of gateways. Most enterprises have multi vendor, multi-generational PBX systems in their networks. Therefore, it is important that the gateway should be able to convert any protocol to any other protocol to protect the investments made in the voice networks instead of requiring to do a rip and replace. Besides, a good gateway should provide staged approach to migrating legacy PBX users to Microsoft UC.

With the divergent networks, dial plans can become very cumbersome. A good gateway should provide a centralized dial plan for the entire organization taking into account the different dialing restrictions that are inherent to global number formats, and specific vendor implementation requirements.

Security threats can cripple voice networks and other IP network nodes. A good gateway should offer high reliability and resiliency with features like high availability, load balancing, and security through encryption and firewall capabilities to thwart Denial of Service attacks. Microsoft requires TLS and SRTP for protecting signaling and media traffic. A gateway should be able to support these encryption technologies.

It should be expected that the IP networks may go down once in a while. When an IP network goes down, the branch office networks may get isolated. A good gateway should offer protection against IP failures by providing survivability features such as providing alternate routing/failover connectivity to PSTN and local phone services with registered SIP/Wifi phones.

Many enterprises often require to switch calls from one service provider to another in order to keep their long distance charges low. A good gateway can flexibly switch calls between service providers to provide least cost routing.

Enterprise users still conduct business using fax machines, and analog devices like postage meters, HVAC equipment, security systems, and other modem based devices. A right gateway provides a smooth transition to unified communications for these legacy devices.

Finally, only a vendor that has the range of equipment that meets every enterprise use from small business to large enterprise can offer one stop solution and reduces UC deployment project risks.

Suresh Tatavarthy

Posted: Tuesday, June 30, 5:40 PM

Joined: 6/30/2009
Posts: 2

Marty and David, here is an approximation. The answer should be very similar to the PSTN case Marty gave. Looking at your scenario, multiply the number of users by $400 for the OCS costs (same as given by Marty). Then add the VX costs (2 GW’s). The GWs for 1000 users assuming 1:10 ratio, cost of each GW is roughly $18K per node. Assuming High Availability, 2 GWs will cost about $36K. The cost of GWs will be roughly 9 – 10%.

What Infrastructure

admin — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 23:11:11 GMT

Dave Michels

Posted: Tuesday, October 27, 9:56 PM

Joined: 4/15/2009
Posts: 6

Today Amazon lowered their price for their EC2 services.

Is everything going to go to the cloud? Mitel, Avaya are certifying their products for virtualized servers. Trunks are going SIP. Does it make sense to put a phone system onsite any more?

Art Rosenberg

Posted: Wednesday, October 28, 8:36 AM

Joined: 1/16/2007
Posts: 16

Good question!

Quick answer.

Given the increasing role of both user mobility and teleworking, the fact that IP Telephony has become software-based, network-independent (wired,wireless), and endpoint-device independent, there is little reason to keep enterprise telephone systems hardware-oriented and premise-based. Throw in the fact that IP telephony is becoming a part of an "open" UC solution that must encompass the needs of individual end users both within and outside of an organization (business partners, customers), the different communication application servers should eventually all be part of the same interoperable "virtual" infrastructure.

So, what's the benefit of keeping things the same as in the past?

How do I ease into UC?

admin — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 23:09:34 GMT

Pam Avila

Posted: Wednesday, October 21, 9:46 AM

Joined: 7/16/2008
Posts: 17

My company has several business issues that, it would appear, could be resolved with some of the UC solutions that I’ve been exploring. We’re concerned about the overall cost to implement some of these solutions and we already have a lot of infrastructure and legacy equipment in place. Would we have to change out everything that we have now or is there a way for us to ease into unified communications solutions?

Robyn Thompson

Posted: Wednesday, October 21, 10:28 AM

Joined: 10/5/2009
Posts: 4

Many companies have made a significant investment in infrastructure and endpoints and it’s not practical to “rip and replace” everything at once. That’s why the concept of Self-Paced Migration is attractive to many companies. This involves creating a UC overlay on top of your existing PBX and over time and moving gradually to a totally IP solution as budgets allow.

Pam Avila

Posted: Friday, October 23, 9:37 AM

Joined: 7/16/2008
Posts: 17

OK, I get the benefits of a migration strategy for a company. Then what are we talking about from a timing perspective and is there somewhere that is a good place to start? How should a businss prioritize the steps that they’re going to take?

Robyn Thompson

Posted: Friday, October 23, 11:33 AM

Joined: 10/5/2009
Posts: 4

Look at where UC can have the most impact in the company and/or where there is the biggest need. Here’s a sample rollout that we've used at Aastra:

In the first stage the UC solution is implemented as an overlay to existing systems and provides services to teleworkers, small branches and road warriors. It also provides a unified dial plan and UC features such as desktop integration and fixed mobile convergence for high priority users, regardless of their current PBX system.
The second phase handles VoIP migration of sites with obsolete systems as these will yield significant productivity improvements as well as important cost reductions and business continuity improvements.
The third phase continues the migration with the next set of highest priority sites as defined by the customers overall migration plan.
The final phase consists of migration of the largest and/or lower priority sites to complete the migration.

Robyn Thompson

Posted: Tuesday, December 1, 12:49 PM

Joined: 10/5/2009
Posts: 4

There's a nice article by Art Rosenberg on this site outlining steps for a CIO to help his organization migrate to UC