Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '3CX Phone System - General' started by asfuture, Dec 4, 2007.
is anybody there with experience about this?? is multitenant suportted by 3CX???
When you say "multitenant" do you mean having multiple companies or offices on the same 3CX server with each tenant being completely seperate (ie each tenant could have an extension 101 that rings seperately)?
If so, I don't believe 3CX is currently capable of doing that on a single server.
Re: Good morning
Just out of curiosity: is there any PBX that is capable of?
Avaya (and older Lucent Technologies branded) entrprise grade pbxes has this feature since years.
I can understand a desire to have multitenant PBX on Lucent PBX (because of its price), but I can not imagine why we should implement it. It is not sky rocket technology to implement, but there're too many inevitable drawbacks to even try.
Re: Good morning
Yes. Do you can Siemens?? The series HiPath 3k or the 8k?? they are multitenant capable. en they are working very goed. but they are some problems with UC 2007. en the TCO is very high
why?? the 3CX is Supporting Windows clustering. and you have a Service Shared CEnter. we offer on this moment desktop en it's a easy step to offer also VOIP..
Vote it up on IdeaScale if you agree!
Generally in most cases will be enough to have a limited kind of "multitenant" operation, which is more or less related to grouping extensions, lines, etc., having separate operator for each tenant, etc. This is not so hard to implement (something similar is implemented in Panasonic -- all resources may be assigned a tenant group and may be used among the members only) - this means that extension 101 belongs to one single tenant only, the next should have 201, etc. In this case will be better to have 4-digits extension numbering plan, where the first digit designates the tenant, etc. Internal call between tenants may be limited also.
I would like to see something simple. Inbound calls are not a problem as you can point the DID to different AA or Extensions. Outbound is where the problem lies. They need to have specific trunk group access so they grab the lines assigned to them so the right caller ID is sent. Is this possible in Version 10?
If I understood you correctly, it is quite easy to set outbound rules for desired behaviour.
If you have several providers (trunks) you may allow only specific group of extensions to use it (this will insure correct Caller-ID been sent). If this is one SIP trunk (many channels or sim. calls) you simply may sent the desired Caller-ID, setting it in 'Extension setting | Other | Outbound Caller-ID'.
One issue that may arise, is that there is only one operator extension.
Many others can be overcome with some sort of "work around". Dialling another tenants extensions/ringgroups (directly), in error, can be eliminated buy using SIP phones (or ATA's) that have internal dialplans that allow the blocking of certain digit combinations.
I really have to question if this feature has any merit at all.
Multi-Tenant Support 15 Votes
MOH Streaming Support 110 Votes
As a developer, I wouldn't put any effort into something that barely a dozen people have requested. Given the list of things with many, many more votes, I personally am not seeing this as being a show stopper for sales or many, many other people would have voted it up. Remove the people that are wanting to offer 3CX as a hosted offering, in which case Multi-Tenant makes sense, you are probably left with only a few actual businesses wanting such a feature.
If I am missing something in my analysis, please let me know.
Actually, I beg to differ. We are an IT services company. We do sales, repair and IT services. Many of our clients are heading in the direction of managed services. They are moving many of the things that used to be hosted locally "to the cloud". The majority of small to medium sized businesses can't afford the expense of an on-staff IT guy (much less one that properly understands a server environment).
We see this all the time: Client has a problem with their on-site Exchange mail server. Turns out they weren't doing proper backups. Long story short, we spend a few days rebuilding the server, recovering data, and reconfiguring workstations. A very hefty fee to restore their e-mail services (which is usually at emergency labor rate, since e-mail servers are business critical to most of these companies). Not to mention the cost of new hardware. Due to incidents like this, many clients are opting for our "in-the-cloud" managed services. Our $4.95/mo Exchange 2010 e-mail hosting service is a much more affordable option for them when you compare it to the cost maintaining and repairing an in-house Exchange server.
We are trying to take that same methodology to the phones realm. Again, phone are business critical, and they can't afford to have them go down due to hardware failure or other lack-of-maintenance issues. They also need to be managed and backed up; which is easier for us (and thus cheaper for the client) in some sort of multi-tenant environment.
When presenting all the benefits managed services and hosting things in the cloud to our clients, they realize the value immediately. The cost savings of not having to constantly purchase new equipment, do updates, monitor the systems, maintain proper backups, etc. and pay a set monthly fee (something they can budget) for is always very appealing to the business owner. More importantly, downtime is virtually eliminated, since we're running these servers in a datacenter with multiple redundancies.
I, for one, would be able to make a ton of sales if this was implemented. For now I'm stuck with virtualizing each installation of 3CX and Windows (a real pain when I want to add a new tenant or change a setting that needs to be changed on all installations).
But maybe 3CX is not geared towards such an advanced scenario? I mean, 3CX prides itself on being a WINDOWS based PBX. I'd venture to say that many of the users of the 3CX PBX do not have the skills necessary to implement a more corporate type of PBX (like something by Cisco or Linux based Asterisk). Maybe 3CX is gearing their marketing and their product to the novice/intermediate users who don't have the skills or the time to learn how to setup and probably manage a more complex system?
Just my 2 cents.
Like Kerry said, the numbers don't lie. If this is a feature you want, then vote it up. V10 incorporated a lot of user requests into features, but if users don't request or vote up features it means it isn't really important to the majority of our users. 3CX is geared towards advanced scenarios, we do pride ourselves in being simple and easy to use and setup and we have plenty of corporations using our PBX case in point look at our case studies just to name a few. This has nothing to do with can 3CX do it but is it worth it. You may find this feature useful but 30,000 others might not, it is a business decision and has nothing to do with our ability to create such an advanced feature.
So everyone thinks moving 3CX to a hosted solution for everyone is the future?
I have a few concerns regarding this idea.
Small client with 20 users wants to move his 3CX to a remotely hosted solution so he no longer as to have the 3CX Software / Hardware onsite. His internet connection is 10Mb Down and 1Mb UP, (ADSL Service)
Would it not be the case, moving the 3CX to a remote solution that the 3CX Proxy Server would need to be installed on-site to deal with audio issues etc from being behind a Nat firewall?
Moving 3CX to a remotely hosted solution will also place a need upon the client to have more bandwidth available to them then if 3CX was hosted onsite.?
very good point David and valid concerns to deal with.
ontop of the issues above, using a hostes solutions requires the data connections to be up at the remote site and at the hosting facility. In the wake of the small earthquake on the east coast here in the united states as well as the up coming hurricane, I would prefer my 3cx be at my site not in the line of fire, as opposed to being in a data center that I dont know where it it is at.
Concern 2 also depends on how many outside trunks the customer is using. If all extension to extension calls stayed internal, not passing through the PBX, then only a trunk to extension call would be using a chunk of bandwidth for a duration...and , of course, things like checking voicemail.
One installation could have 100 extensions but only 3 trunks (perhaps a school, with many classrooms), they would have a different bandwidth requirement (back to the hosted 3CX) as compared to a customer with 20 extensions and 10 trunks (or more).
If you are going to be running the 3CX proxy server (on a PC/server) at a customer location anyway, which is the most practical with many extensions, then why not just run 3CX? There would have to be a good reason not to.
So, in some cases, hosting would make sense from both a practical and economic standpoint. But, as we all know, each customer is different.
The fact is that less than a dozen people have voted for it. While YOU may think it is critically important for YOUR business, obviously the vast majority of people have no desire for it.