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: CallManager 8.6 Record of Who Placed Calls on Hold (Wes Sisk)
2. Re: CUCM 8.6(2) cluster slowness and UCCX issues when
Subscriber goes offline (Wes Sisk)
3. UC on UCS - platform selection: quantity vs quality
(Lelio Fulgenzi)
4. Re: UC on UCS - platform selection: quantity vs quality
(Lelio Fulgenzi)
5. Re: UC on UCS - platform selection: quantity vs quality
(Terry Oakley)
6. Re: Fw: Services option missing on 7912 (Damian Turburville)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:33:20 +0530
From: Wes Sisk <[email protected]>
To: Matthew Ballard <[email protected]>
Cc: "'cisco-voip@puck. net'" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CallManager 8.6 Record of Who Placed Calls
on Hold
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
only two options come to mind:
1) archiving and parsing SDI traces
2) a CTI app that monitors phones
Personally I'd do #1.
I suspect there is also a way to glean this from CDR/CMR records as well. One
of the CDR vendors may have more information.
/wes
On Dec 4, 2012, at 5:34 AM, Matthew Ballard wrote:
I have a request to see if it's possible to find out who has placed calls on
hold, and how often.
We are looking at changing our Hold music, and my boss is interested in getting
a better idea of the audiences who end up listening to Hold music, which we
could get from knowing who is placing calls on hold.
This can include calls who end up hearing hold music due to Transfers or
anything else.
Anyone happen to know how to get those logs? I tried looking at some
information online, but I'm not seeing a good answer.
Thank You,
Matthew Ballard
Network Manager
Otis College of Art and Design
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
[email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:45:20 +0530
From: Wes Sisk <[email protected]>
To: "Linsemier, Matthew" <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.6(2) cluster slowness and UCCX issues
when Subscriber goes offline
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
A few things sound slightly off here. First and foremost running CUCM 8.6.2
base. 8.6.2 included a CTI re-architecture that significantly impacted UCCE
and UCCX integrations. The good news was increased CTI performance but with the
clause "when it worked". There are numerous discussions on this mailer about
those defects. Best to get to the latest 8.6.2SU at least.
I'm fuzzy on cluster over the WAN details but when last I looked the supported
RTT was insufficient to go coast to coast. Is this within spec?
And finally logins when one node is offline. That should generally work. I
believe UCCX has a dependency to primarily point to the publisher CUCM server
and if that goes offline or becomes unreachable then trouble ensues.
Great job testing before deployment. Best to open a TAC case and work through
this pre-production.
Regards,
Wes
On Dec 5, 2012, at 10:52 PM, Linsemier, Matthew wrote:
All,
We have implemented a new CUCM 8.6(2) Cluster (1 pub, 2 subs), UCCX 8.5(1)SU3,
and CUPS 8.5(4) cluster for a greenfield move from an old CUCM 6.1(2) setup.
One publisher and subscriber are located at our HQ (West Coast) office and the
second subscriber is located in our DR (East Coast) office. The new cluster is
configured for Active Directory LDAP integration and everything is working
fantastic?.
? until we took the subscriber in our DR location (East Coast) offline to do DR
testing. Phones that were registered to this subscriber re-registered with our
HQ (West Coast) office without problem. However, we have run into a few issues.
1. UCCX Agents are having issues logging into the UCCX server even when
they are in the same physical location. I found a few bugs relating to slow
LDAP login however they show as resolved. Eventually some agents are able to
log in, however there have been a few that still cannot get logged in. Those
UCCX agents that were logged in when the subscriber went down are working fine
and didn?t notice anything
2. All of the servers seem to be sluggish in regards to login?s. It is
taking upwards of 20-30 seconds to log into the administration pages and browse
between functions.
I suspect that when we bring the Subscriber server back online the problem will
be resolved. This is a clean cluster, all current on patches, very clean
configuration, running on physically MCS servers that are properly sized.
However, we can?t have the inability for agents to log in as well as lose the
ability to administer the system if this was to happen. In this situation it?s
controlled, but I?m worried about ones that are not (hardware failure, software
crash, etc.).
Can someone provide some insight into what might be going on?
Sincerely,
<image001.gif>
Matthew M. Linsemier, CCNP / CCDP
Senior Network Engineer
The Doctors Company
( 517.324.6695
* [email protected]
Confidentiality Notice: This message and any attachments hereto may contain
confidential and privileged communications or information and/or attorney
client communications or work-product protected by law. The information
contained herein is transmitted for the sole use of the intended recipient(s).
If you are not the intended recipient or designated agent of the recipient of
such information, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying
or retention of this e-mail or the information contained herein is strictly
prohibited and may subject you to penalties under federal and/or state law. If
you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and
permanently delete this e-mail.
_______________________________________________
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/20121210/22cb0825/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 09:55:02 -0500 (EST)
From: Lelio Fulgenzi <[email protected]>
To: cisco-voip <[email protected]>
Subject: [cisco-voip] UC on UCS - platform selection: quantity vs
quality
Message-ID:
<1402010748.97637.1355151302475.javamail.r...@squeaky.cs.uoguelph.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I had some interesting feedback from my SE after he discussed our UC on UCS
requirements with his support network. Basically, the feedback was, rather than
two UCS C260s, I should get four UCS 240s. This was to provide maximum
hardware/software redundancy and maximum performance.
While I understand the additional hardware/software redundancy, I'm not 100%
convinced about the maximum performance. I mean we read through the
requirements on the wiki, ensured we had the required CPUs for each
application, and there was quite a bit of harddisk, cpu and memory to spare.
I'd rather minimize the amount of time managing the hardware and also reduce
costs as much as possible.
I understand the C240s are the new M3 specs, and the C260s are the older M2
specs, but I'm guessing those too will be updated soon.
What sort of feedback are others getting who are investigating UC on UCS chasis
servers?
---
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)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20121210/b4c5eb15/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:49:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Lelio Fulgenzi <[email protected]>
To: Terry Oakley <[email protected]>
Cc: cisco-voip <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UC on UCS - platform selection: quantity vs
quality
Message-ID:
<1949642495.108024.1355154596121.javamail.r...@squeaky.cs.uoguelph.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Thanks Terry. That would be great.
While I understand there are doc based specs and real life, I'm a little
concerned with the push to multiple chassis. There's quite a bit of overheard
per chassis, including the additional VMware license and support costs. If
there are concerns with running too many apps on one box, why don't they list
that anywhere in the specs, i.e. for every 5 servers, reserve one free CPU, or
something like that. They do that with the Unity Connection spec, so it's easy
to do it with others.
Anyways, I'll wait to hear back.
---
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: "Terry Oakley" <[email protected]>
To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <[email protected]>, "cisco-voip"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 10:42:55 AM
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] UC on UCS - platform selection: quantity vs quality
We are just starting to look at upgrading from HP hardware to UC on UCS so will
forward our supports ?recommendations? once they arrive. Currently they are
just getting the stats together but should have something in 2 weeks but am
curious to see how they match up to your supports recommendations.
Terry
Terry Oakley
Telecommunication Coordinator, | Information Technology Services
100 College Blvd | Red Deer, AB T4N 5H5
Tel (403) 342-3521 | [email protected]
Description: RDC Logo
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
Sent: December-10-12 7:55 AM
To: cisco-voip
Subject: [cisco-voip] UC on UCS - platform selection: quantity vs quality
I had some interesting feedback from my SE after he discussed our UC on UCS
requirements with his support network. Basically, the feedback was, rather than
two UCS C260s, I should get four UCS 240s. This was to provide maximum
hardware/software redundancy and maximum performance.
While I understand the additional hardware/software redundancy, I'm not 100%
convinced about the maximum performance. I mean we read through the
requirements on the wiki, ensured we had the required CPUs for each
application, and there was quite a bit of harddisk, cpu and memory to spare.
I'd rather minimize the amount of time managing the hardware and also reduce
costs as much as possible.
I understand the C240s are the new M3 specs, and the C260s are the older M2
specs, but I'm guessing those too will be updated soon.
What sort of feedback are others getting who are investigating UC on UCS chasis
servers?
---
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)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20121210/76610c2c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2017 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20121210/76610c2c/attachment-0001.jpg>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 08:42:55 -0700
From: Terry Oakley <[email protected]>
To: Lelio Fulgenzi <[email protected]>, cisco-voip
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UC on UCS - platform selection: quantity vs
quality
Message-ID:
<15f47b5df14db045a241b0b13672e6f00e8c3d7...@rdcexmail1.rdcsrvcs.ads>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
We are just starting to look at upgrading from HP hardware to UC on UCS so will
forward our supports ?recommendations? once they arrive. Currently they are
just getting the stats together but should have something in 2 weeks but am
curious to see how they match up to your supports recommendations.
Terry
Terry Oakley
Telecommunication Coordinator, | Information Technology Services
100 College Blvd | Red Deer, AB T4N 5H5
Tel (403) 342-3521 | [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[cid:[email protected]]<http://www.rdc.ab.ca/>
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
Sent: December-10-12 7:55 AM
To: cisco-voip
Subject: [cisco-voip] UC on UCS - platform selection: quantity vs quality
I had some interesting feedback from my SE after he discussed our UC on UCS
requirements with his support network. Basically, the feedback was, rather than
two UCS C260s, I should get four UCS 240s. This was to provide maximum
hardware/software redundancy and maximum performance.
While I understand the additional hardware/software redundancy, I'm not 100%
convinced about the maximum performance. I mean we read through the
requirements on the wiki, ensured we had the required CPUs for each
application, and there was quite a bit of harddisk, cpu and memory to spare.
I'd rather minimize the amount of time managing the hardware and also reduce
costs as much as possible.
I understand the C240s are the new M3 specs, and the C260s are the older M2
specs, but I'm guessing those too will be updated soon.
What sort of feedback are others getting who are investigating UC on UCS chasis
servers?
---
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)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20121210/eafdb9a6/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2017 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20121210/eafdb9a6/attachment-0001.jpg>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:23:05 +0000 (GMT)
From: Damian Turburville <[email protected]>
To: Michael Muscat <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Fw: Services option missing on 7912
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Cheers for that Michael but unfortunately already tried the rebooting with no
luck...
________________________________
From: Michael Muscat <[email protected]>
To: 'Damian Turburville' <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, 6 December 2012, 21:52
Subject: FW: [cisco-voip] Fw: Services option missing on 7912
I had a similar problem a few months ago and rebooting the phones fixed it.?
Don?t know what caused it but it was for all 7912?s only.
?
From:[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Damian Turburville
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 5:40 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [cisco-voip] Fw: Services option missing on 7912
?
Any ideas guys?
?
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Damian Turburville <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, 4 December 2012, 11:14
Subject: [cisco-voip] Services option missing on 7912
?
Bit of an odd one here, hopefully someone else has come across it.
?
Moved Cisco 7912's? from a CCM 4.1 cluster to a CUCM 6.1 cluster. Phone was
fine. We had an issue with DHCP scopes last week and all the phones rebooted
and since then 2 of the 7912's that were moved do not have either the
4.Services option or the 5.Help option when you goto the Application menu.
A quick google found something about a 4k memory limit on the 7912 and it could
be losing part of the XML config but that was a bug (CSCeg35909) that was fixed
back in 4.1.3 SR1 so I have no idea whats going on...
?
Here is the device info from one of? the phones
?
MAC Address 00131951584D
Host Name SEP00131951584D
Phone DN 5662
App Load ID CP7912080003SCCP070409A
Boot Load ID LD0100BOOT021112A
Software Version 8.0.3(070409A)
Hardware Revision 0x0005 0x0000
Serial Number INM08531JLM
Product ID CP-7912G
H/W Features 0x00000003
BTXML Cards Version LD04-25-2002#0
Message Waiting NO
?
Any ideas anyone?
Cheers,
Damian
?
?
?
_______________________________________________
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/20121210/27e94a78/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
[email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
End of cisco-voip Digest, Vol 110, Issue 10
*******************************************
