Send cisco-voip mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of cisco-voip digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: E.164 support in UCCX ? (Nate VanMaren)
2. SIP (Vijay Bhaskar)
3. Re: Cheap Platform for High Density FXS? (chris)
4. Re: Cheap Platform for High Density FXS? (Lelio Fulgenzi)
5. Re: Cheap Platform for High Density FXS? (Nate VanMaren)
6. Re: Cheap Platform for High Density FXS? (Jason Aarons (AM))
7. setting the ARP cache timeout for phones using DHCP option
([email protected])
8. Difference between ESX and ESXI (Cristina Petre)
9. Re: Difference between ESX and ESXI (Matthew Loraditch)
10. Re: Difference between ESX and ESXI (Chris Ward (chrward))
11. Re: Difference between ESX and ESXI (Cristina Petre)
12. Type A 7940 Phones and RFC 2833 and CXN 9.0(1) (Jason Aarons (AM))
13. Re: Difference between ESX and ESXI (Cristina Petre)
14. Re: setting the ARP cache timeout for phones using DHCP
option (Ryan Ratliff)
15. Re: Difference between ESX and ESXI (Chris Ward (chrward))
16. Re: Type A 7940 Phones and RFC 2833 and CXN 9.0(1) (Paul)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2012 16:00:53 +0000
From: Nate VanMaren <[email protected]>
To: "Jason Aarons (AM)" <[email protected]>, "cisco-voip
([email protected])" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] E.164 support in UCCX ?
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>From the release notes for 9:
Unsupported Configurations for Agent Phones:
Use of characters other than the numerals 0-9 in the Unified CCX extension of
an agent.
UCCX still does not support +E.164 agent extension. But hey, who is still
expecting UCCX to actually be something different than it was 10 years ago.
-Nate
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jason Aarons (AM)
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2012 4:54 AM
To: cisco-voip ([email protected])
Subject: [cisco-voip] E.164 support in UCCX ?
Is having CallManager lines with \+1904XXXYYYY supported fully by UCCX ? If so
what version of UCCX started E164 support? Should it be in the UCCX release
notes that E164 is supported?
I see CAD E164 was fixed CSCtg90305 with 8.5.1SU3
Lastly I can run UCCX 9.0(1) with CallManager 8.6(2a)SU2 or CallManager 9.0(1).
I'm currently planning to run it with 8.6(2a)SU2, and upgrade CallManager
later.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/voice_ip_comm/cust_contact/contact_center/crs/express_compatibility/matrix/crscomtx.pdf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20121007/2d520831/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2012 22:12:05 +0530
From: Vijay Bhaskar <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: [cisco-voip] SIP
Message-ID:
<CAKU67t=X4YKXx_dXxqKHgumpR6=zpioa66ck2__aycsrhsw...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
respected sir,
i am doing SIP (Session Initiation Protocol)
project. i want some guidance.
vijaya bhaskar
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2012 13:17:03 -0400
From: chris <[email protected]>
To: Doug McIntyre <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Cheap Platform for High Density FXS?
Message-ID:
<caknnfz_egvtqdvyldpavmwrdtzpqxngy2m2hg0umpnw6kck...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I'm not totally against 2 boxes but I was liking having it builtin to
the router for consolidation on the 2600 I can use the fe or wic slots
for wan connectivity along side the voice connectivity. Not every site
has T1 so a channel bank is to inflexible. Looking at the VG224, that
doesnt look bad, looks like a IAD for the most part, dual fe is nice
too.
On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Doug McIntyre <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 07, 2012 at 09:55:27AM -0400, chris wrote:
>> I am looking for any advice on a cheap platform to connect high
>> amounts of FXS. The solution thats worked for me thus far has been
>> 2600xm with nm-hda and the em-8fxs expansion gets me up to 12 fxs..
>
> Do you need single box? Or how about two boxen?
>
> FXS channel bank into T1 into a T1 voice-card.
>
> Well, at least channel banks used to be fairly cheap used. I don't see
> too many on eBay right now.
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2012 14:27:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Lelio Fulgenzi <[email protected]>
To: chris <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Cheap Platform for High Density FXS?
Message-ID:
<1774569682.1862641.1349634441809.javamail.r...@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
it also depends on the total amount of ports and what those ports are. VG224
are only regular on-premise loops. the routers allow for OPX-lite ports. and of
course, uplink ports cost money too. if you have a local switch with plenty of
uplink ports, and come up with a good way to manage your devices, then multiple
vg224s might be your best bet.
---
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (ANNU)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
- LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
----- Original Message -----
From: "chris" <[email protected]>
To: "Doug McIntyre" <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 7 October, 2012 1:17:03 PM
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Cheap Platform for High Density FXS?
I'm not totally against 2 boxes but I was liking having it builtin to
the router for consolidation on the 2600 I can use the fe or wic slots
for wan connectivity along side the voice connectivity. Not every site
has T1 so a channel bank is to inflexible. Looking at the VG224, that
doesnt look bad, looks like a IAD for the most part, dual fe is nice
too.
On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Doug McIntyre <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 07, 2012 at 09:55:27AM -0400, chris wrote:
>> I am looking for any advice on a cheap platform to connect high
>> amounts of FXS. The solution thats worked for me thus far has been
>> 2600xm with nm-hda and the em-8fxs expansion gets me up to 12 fxs..
>
> Do you need single box? Or how about two boxen?
>
> FXS channel bank into T1 into a T1 voice-card.
>
> Well, at least channel banks used to be fairly cheap used. I don't see
> too many on eBay right now.
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
[email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20121007/49858dea/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2012 19:07:23 +0000
From: Nate VanMaren <[email protected]>
To: chris <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Cheap Platform for High Density FXS?
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
VG248 is still my favorite device. It was easy to configure, use, and monitor.
Too bad the guys who made it quit Cisco and it stopped getting software
updates.
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2012 12:27 PM
To: chris
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Cheap Platform for High Density FXS?
it also depends on the total amount of ports and what those ports are. VG224
are only regular on-premise loops. the routers allow for OPX-lite ports. and of
course, uplink ports cost money too. if you have a local switch with plenty of
uplink ports, and come up with a good way to manage your devices, then multiple
vg224s might be your best bet.
---
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (ANNU)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
- LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
________________________________
From: "chris" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
To: "Doug McIntyre" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, 7 October, 2012 1:17:03 PM
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Cheap Platform for High Density FXS?
I'm not totally against 2 boxes but I was liking having it builtin to
the router for consolidation on the 2600 I can use the fe or wic slots
for wan connectivity along side the voice connectivity. Not every site
has T1 so a channel bank is to inflexible. Looking at the VG224, that
doesnt look bad, looks like a IAD for the most part, dual fe is nice
too.
On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Doug McIntyre
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 07, 2012 at 09:55:27AM -0400, chris wrote:
>> I am looking for any advice on a cheap platform to connect high
>> amounts of FXS. The solution thats worked for me thus far has been
>> 2600xm with nm-hda and the em-8fxs expansion gets me up to 12 fxs..
>
> Do you need single box? Or how about two boxen?
>
> FXS channel bank into T1 into a T1 voice-card.
>
> Well, at least channel banks used to be fairly cheap used. I don't see
> too many on eBay right now.
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20121007/dd133175/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2012 15:46:57 -0400
From: "Jason Aarons (AM)" <[email protected]>
To: Nate VanMaren <[email protected]>, chris
<[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Cheap Platform for High Density FXS?
Message-ID:
<4e38db0a1959b04c8c83edcf069b53ed0d2a175...@usispclexdb01.na.didata.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
The problem was around the 3rd party DSP chipset/firmware. It wasn?t the same
quality as the VG224.
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Nate VanMaren
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2012 3:07 PM
To: chris
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Cheap Platform for High Density FXS?
VG248 is still my favorite device. It was easy to configure, use, and monitor.
Too bad the guys who made it quit Cisco and it stopped getting software
updates.
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2012 12:27 PM
To: chris
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Cheap Platform for High Density FXS?
it also depends on the total amount of ports and what those ports are. VG224
are only regular on-premise loops. the routers allow for OPX-lite ports. and of
course, uplink ports cost money too. if you have a local switch with plenty of
uplink ports, and come up with a good way to manage your devices, then multiple
vg224s might be your best bet.
---
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (ANNU)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
- LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
________________________________
From: "chris" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
To: "Doug McIntyre" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, 7 October, 2012 1:17:03 PM
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Cheap Platform for High Density FXS?
I'm not totally against 2 boxes but I was liking having it builtin to
the router for consolidation on the 2600 I can use the fe or wic slots
for wan connectivity along side the voice connectivity. Not every site
has T1 so a channel bank is to inflexible. Looking at the VG224, that
doesnt look bad, looks like a IAD for the most part, dual fe is nice
too.
On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Doug McIntyre
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 07, 2012 at 09:55:27AM -0400, chris wrote:
>> I am looking for any advice on a cheap platform to connect high
>> amounts of FXS. The solution thats worked for me thus far has been
>> 2600xm with nm-hda and the em-8fxs expansion gets me up to 12 fxs..
>
> Do you need single box? Or how about two boxen?
>
> FXS channel bank into T1 into a T1 voice-card.
>
> Well, at least channel banks used to be fairly cheap used. I don't see
> too many on eBay right now.
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
itevomcid
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20121007/3c6f1039/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 16:10:18 +0800
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [cisco-voip] setting the ARP cache timeout for phones using
DHCP option
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Currently Being Moderated
CONFIGURING THE ARP CACHE TIMEOUT FOR CISCO PHONES [1]
Hi All,
?
I am hoping to configure the ARP cache timeout for Cisco phones using
the dhcp option.
I was wondering if anyone here has done it or can verify that this
would be correct.
?
Say for example I have a DHCP pool named VOICE.
In this network, the CUCM is located at IP address 10.2.200.110
?
I did some google searching and found a Wiki site with the various
dhcp options defined in it.
?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_Host_Configuration_Protocol [2]
According to the site, dhcp option 35 is used as the ARP Cache
Timeout value and it is 4 bytes long.
?
Lets say that I would like to set my arp cache timeout to be 300
seconds.
I convert 300 to hex and get 12C.
Since my field will need to be four bytes long this becomes
0000.012C.
?
I think that the following dhcp pool will provide 300 seconds for the
phone ARP cache timeout.
?
ip dhcp pool VOICE
network 10.240.1.0 255.255.255.0
default-router 10.240.1.1
option 150 ip 10.2.200.110
option 35 hex 0000.0c12??????????
?
Can anyone help me out with a verification or point me in the
direction of the appropiate documentation?
?
Many thanks for any assistance.
?
Regards
?
Amanda Lalli-Cafini
Links:
------
[1] http://webmail.iinet.net.au/MESSAGE/3751318#3751318
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_Host_Configuration_Protocol
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20121008/5fe59b85/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 14:40:03 +0200
From: Cristina Petre <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: [cisco-voip] Difference between ESX and ESXI
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hi all,
What's the difference between ESX and ESXI? Which type of vitualized hardware
server are compatible with what kind of ESX/ESXI?
Many thanks in advance.
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 12:50:16 +0000
From: Matthew Loraditch <[email protected]>
To: Cristina Petre <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Difference between ESX and ESXI
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Here is a link to VMware's info:
http://www.vmware.com/products/vsphere/esxi-and-esx/compare.html
But from a practical standpoint it doesn't matter. ESX is dead. ESXi is the
only version still shipping and the only version Cisco has ever support for UC.
Here is the docwiki with all kinds of info on specific supported hardware, etc:
http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/Unified_Communications_in_a_Virtualized_Environment
Matthew G. Loraditch - CCNP-Voice, CCNA, CCDA
1965 Greenspring Drive
Timonium, MD 21093
voice. 410.252.8830
fax.? 410.252.9284???
Twitter? |? Facebook? | Website? |? Email Support
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cristina Petre
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 8:40 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [cisco-voip] Difference between ESX and ESXI
Hi all,
What's the difference between ESX and ESXI? Which type of vitualized hardware
server are compatible with what kind of ESX/ESXI?
Many thanks in advance.
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
[email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 13:28:06 +0000
From: "Chris Ward (chrward)" <[email protected]>
To: Matthew Loraditch <[email protected]>, Cristina
Petre <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Difference between ESX and ESXI
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
At a very basic level, ESX was software that ran on another OS (linux) and ESXi
is an OS in itself.
+Chris
Unity Connection TME
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matthew Loraditch
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 8:50 AM
To: Cristina Petre; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Difference between ESX and ESXI
Here is a link to VMware's info:
http://www.vmware.com/products/vsphere/esxi-and-esx/compare.html
But from a practical standpoint it doesn't matter. ESX is dead. ESXi is the
only version still shipping and the only version Cisco has ever support for UC.
Here is the docwiki with all kinds of info on specific supported hardware, etc:
http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/Unified_Communications_in_a_Virtualized_Environment
Matthew G. Loraditch - CCNP-Voice, CCNA, CCDA
1965 Greenspring Drive
Timonium, MD 21093
voice. 410.252.8830
fax.? 410.252.9284???
Twitter? |? Facebook? | Website? |? Email Support
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cristina Petre
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 8:40 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [cisco-voip] Difference between ESX and ESXI
Hi all,
What's the difference between ESX and ESXI? Which type of vitualized hardware
server are compatible with what kind of ESX/ESXI?
Many thanks in advance.
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
[email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
[email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 16:45:22 +0200
From: Cristina Petre <[email protected]>
To: "Chris Ward \(chrward\)" <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Difference between ESX and ESXI
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Many thanks for all ;)
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 08.10.2012 um 15:28 schrieb "Chris Ward (chrward)" <[email protected]>:
> At a very basic level, ESX was software that ran on another OS (linux) and
> ESXi is an OS in itself.
>
> +Chris
> Unity Connection TME
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matthew Loraditch
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 8:50 AM
> To: Cristina Petre; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Difference between ESX and ESXI
>
> Here is a link to VMware's info:
> http://www.vmware.com/products/vsphere/esxi-and-esx/compare.html
> But from a practical standpoint it doesn't matter. ESX is dead. ESXi is the
> only version still shipping and the only version Cisco has ever support for
> UC.
> Here is the docwiki with all kinds of info on specific supported hardware,
> etc:
> http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/Unified_Communications_in_a_Virtualized_Environment
>
>
>
>
>
> Matthew G. Loraditch - CCNP-Voice, CCNA, CCDA
>
> 1965 Greenspring Drive
> Timonium, MD 21093
>
> voice. 410.252.8830
> fax. 410.252.9284
>
> Twitter | Facebook | Website | Email Support
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cristina Petre
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 8:40 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [cisco-voip] Difference between ESX and ESXI
>
> Hi all,
>
> What's the difference between ESX and ESXI? Which type of vitualized hardware
> server are compatible with what kind of ESX/ESXI?
>
> Many thanks in advance.
>
> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 10:49:46 -0400
From: "Jason Aarons (AM)" <[email protected]>
To: "cisco-voip ([email protected])"
<[email protected]>
Subject: [cisco-voip] Type A 7940 Phones and RFC 2833 and CXN 9.0(1)
Message-ID:
<4e38db0a1959b04c8c83edcf069b53ed0d2a175...@usispclexdb01.na.didata.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
I'm upgrading a older cluster (CallManager 4x) with a mix of TypeA/TypeB SCCP
phones (7940-7965)
Currently Unity Unified Messaging 5x is SCCP integrated, I'm moving to Unity
Connection 9.0(1) and would like to change from Unity SCCP to CXN SIP
integration to CallManager, however I can't recall having put TypeA SCCP phones
in this screnario.
Any known issues with the SCCP 7940s riding over to CXN via SIP? DTMF?
-jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20121008/dda84e97/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 16:53:50 +0200
From: Cristina Petre <[email protected]>
To: "Chris Ward \(chrward\)" <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Difference between ESX and ESXI
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
But from which cucm Version is the Support of ESXI?
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 08.10.2012 um 15:28 schrieb "Chris Ward (chrward)" <[email protected]>:
> At a very basic level, ESX was software that ran on another OS (linux) and
> ESXi is an OS in itself.
>
> +Chris
> Unity Connection TME
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matthew Loraditch
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 8:50 AM
> To: Cristina Petre; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Difference between ESX and ESXI
>
> Here is a link to VMware's info:
> http://www.vmware.com/products/vsphere/esxi-and-esx/compare.html
> But from a practical standpoint it doesn't matter. ESX is dead. ESXi is the
> only version still shipping and the only version Cisco has ever support for
> UC.
> Here is the docwiki with all kinds of info on specific supported hardware,
> etc:
> http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/Unified_Communications_in_a_Virtualized_Environment
>
>
>
>
>
> Matthew G. Loraditch - CCNP-Voice, CCNA, CCDA
>
> 1965 Greenspring Drive
> Timonium, MD 21093
>
> voice. 410.252.8830
> fax. 410.252.9284
>
> Twitter | Facebook | Website | Email Support
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cristina Petre
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 8:40 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [cisco-voip] Difference between ESX and ESXI
>
> Hi all,
>
> What's the difference between ESX and ESXI? Which type of vitualized hardware
> server are compatible with what kind of ESX/ESXI?
>
> Many thanks in advance.
>
> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 10:55:54 -0400
From: Ryan Ratliff <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] setting the ARP cache timeout for phones
using DHCP option
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
CSCtf62463 seems to indicate the 9971 phones don't support DHCP option 35.
This will vary by model so YMMV.
-Ryan
On Oct 8, 2012, at 4:10 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Currently Being Moderated
Configuring the ARP cache timeout for Cisco phones
Hi All,
I am hoping to configure the ARP cache timeout for Cisco phones using the dhcp
option.
I was wondering if anyone here has done it or can verify that this would be
correct.
Say for example I have a DHCP pool named VOICE.
In this network, the CUCM is located at IP address 10.2.200.110
I did some google searching and found a Wiki site with the various dhcp options
defined in it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_Host_Configuration_Protocol
According to the site, dhcp option 35 is used as the ARP Cache Timeout value
and it is 4 bytes long.
Lets say that I would like to set my arp cache timeout to be 300 seconds.
I convert 300 to hex and get 12C.
Since my field will need to be four bytes long this becomes 0000.012C.
I think that the following dhcp pool will provide 300 seconds for the phone ARP
cache timeout.
ip dhcp pool VOICE
network 10.240.1.0 255.255.255.0
default-router 10.240.1.1
option 150 ip 10.2.200.110
option 35 hex 0000.0c12
Can anyone help me out with a verification or point me in the direction of the
appropiate documentation?
Many thanks for any assistance.
Regards
Amanda Lalli-Cafini
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
[email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20121008/2dbc4804/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 14:56:27 +0000
From: "Chris Ward (chrward)" <[email protected]>
To: Cristina Petre <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Difference between ESX and ESXI
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
ESXi is the only platform that has ever been supported and CUCM started support
in version 8.0.2.
+Chris
Unity Connection TME
-----Original Message-----
From: Cristina Petre [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 10:54 AM
To: Chris Ward (chrward)
Cc: Matthew Loraditch; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Difference between ESX and ESXI
But from which cucm Version is the Support of ESXI?
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 08.10.2012 um 15:28 schrieb "Chris Ward (chrward)" <[email protected]>:
> At a very basic level, ESX was software that ran on another OS (linux) and
> ESXi is an OS in itself.
>
> +Chris
> Unity Connection TME
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matthew Loraditch
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 8:50 AM
> To: Cristina Petre; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Difference between ESX and ESXI
>
> Here is a link to VMware's info:
> http://www.vmware.com/products/vsphere/esxi-and-esx/compare.html
> But from a practical standpoint it doesn't matter. ESX is dead. ESXi is the
> only version still shipping and the only version Cisco has ever support for
> UC.
> Here is the docwiki with all kinds of info on specific supported hardware,
> etc:
> http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/Unified_Communications_in_a_Virtualized_Environment
>
>
>
>
>
> Matthew G. Loraditch - CCNP-Voice, CCNA, CCDA
>
> 1965 Greenspring Drive
> Timonium, MD 21093
>
> voice. 410.252.8830
> fax. 410.252.9284
>
> Twitter | Facebook | Website | Email Support
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cristina Petre
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 8:40 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [cisco-voip] Difference between ESX and ESXI
>
> Hi all,
>
> What's the difference between ESX and ESXI? Which type of vitualized hardware
> server are compatible with what kind of ESX/ESXI?
>
> Many thanks in advance.
>
> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
------------------------------
Message: 16
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 08:46:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Paul <[email protected]>
To: "Jason Aarons \(AM\)" <[email protected]>,
"cisco-voip \([email protected]\)"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Type A 7940 Phones and RFC 2833 and CXN
9.0(1)
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Shouldn't be any DTMF issues as you're not using typeA SIP-firmware phones. CCM
should handle that stuff as you're placing a sip trunk between CCM+CUC. Not
sure why you're changing a skinny integration to sip but it's your hamburger.
________________________________
From: Jason Aarons (AM) <[email protected]>
To: "cisco-voip ([email protected])" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 8, 2012 7:49 AM
Subject: [cisco-voip] Type A 7940 Phones and RFC 2833 and CXN 9.0(1)
I?m upgrading a older cluster (CallManager 4x) with a mix of TypeA/TypeB SCCP
phones (7940-7965)
?
Currently Unity Unified Messaging 5x is SCCP integrated, I?m moving to Unity
Connection 9.0(1) and would like to change from Unity SCCP to CXN SIP
integration to CallManager, however I can?t recall having put TypeA SCCP phones
in this screnario.
?
Any known issues with the SCCP 7940s riding over to CXN via SIP? DTMF?
?
-jason
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
[email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20121008/8f4552ad/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
[email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
End of cisco-voip Digest, Vol 108, Issue 8
******************************************
