Cisco vs Polycom conference phone issue. Apologies for dullness.
Rather dull VOIP conference phone question.
Long story, as short as possible.
My company has a Cisco based VOIP setup, all fairly decent and new kit. Call manager is v4 though.
My chairman works from abroad, and has a local broadband, with a Cisco ASA5505 with DSL, and an IPphone - a
7941.
He also has a totally unrelated, and not connected to us in anyway,
Siemens HiPath 3000 SIP based PBX.
He wants a conference phone that will work with both. And relatively painlessly so - technologically he is as advanced as turnip and can barely dial numbers so it has to be easy.
He wants the
Polycom IP7000 (because its nice and shiny) and I've also found the
Cisco 7937 which looks strikingly similar. (Suspiciously slow, I suspect Polycom make them both).
Is it possible for one of these phones to work with both the Siemens (SIP) PBX, and the Cisco (currently skinny, but might be able to do SIP) router?
I dont give a damn what phone might do this, just if there is one out there. Is there a switch or device I can employ to allow use of the phone with both setups.
I'm not a VOIP expert, I just manage the setup. My Cisco reseller is not killing himself to sort this as he's not making anything on it really, and he does enough for us already without getting involved. Most Polycom resellers I've spoken to dont want to know, stating that Cisco is too proprietary and they're not really interested in selling one phone.
My 2nd to last option is to simply use the Polycom phone with the Cisco router and tell him it simply wont work with both. Failing that, the Cisco 7937 with the cisco router. Sigh.
Anyone got any experience on this? Sorry for the fantastically dull problem.
Just curious - what is the advantage to having the conference phone appear local on both PBXes? Presumably you can conference in external people with both PBXes, so is this just to save some money on long distance? (Since calls between local extensions on the PBX are free.) If it's just to save a few cents per minute on long distance, it's probably not worth getting involved in any of this.
posted by kamelhoecker at 6:21 AM on November 21, 2008