Ok. Thanks. I'll have to try and sort through that as I get further into my readings.
Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 18, 2014, at 10:18 PM, Josh Warcop <j...@warcop.com> wrote: > > URI dialing uses the directory URI which is not the extension. So in my > Jabber client I see 'usern...@domain.com' to call someone via directory URI. > Again this is generated by the LDAP attribute. You can add additional URIs to > the DN but the one in the directory is the one imported via LDAP. Following > the rules of SIP URI = SMTP = UPN we map the LDAP attribute 'mail' to > Directory URI so everything lines up calling via email address essentially. > > I have a few vanity URIs that are assigned to the directory number. As long > as it isn't a duplicated you can put anything you want. > > Sent from my Windows Phone > From: Lelio Fulgenzi > Sent: 12/18/2014 8:40 PM > To: Josh Warcop > Cc: NateCCIE; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net > Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Expressway 8.5 is out > > > That's good news. That will be a good start. > > I'm not sure about moving from to AD to LDAP as our source. There are other > issues there, namely LDAP version compatibility. > > I'll have to see about convincing the AD team to import the vanity accounts > into the domain. Even if they import them into a hidden container, I should > be able to create another import config to bring those in. > > Another question if you don't mind. > > With URI dialing, which extension does it use? > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Dec 18, 2014, at 8:14 PM, Josh Warcop <j...@warcop.com> wrote: > >> That is configurable via the CUCM Ldap Directory configuration. What is >> returned when searching is not related to the primary extension on the user >> account. The CUCM LDAP directory configuration allows you to pick from >> telephoneNumber or ipPhone. >> >> You're not limited to connecting only to Active Directory. I would look into >> bringing in that other LDAP directory source. >> >> Sent from my Windows Phone >> From: Lelio Fulgenzi >> Sent: 12/18/2014 7:49 PM >> To: Josh Warcop >> Cc: NateCCIE; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net >> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Expressway 8.5 is out >> >> >> Thanks Josh. >> >> Right now we create pseudo-userids in our LDAP directory for just about any >> directory entry users want, e.g. College of Arts, so they can find the >> extension easily. This extends to many, many non user based entries. This >> allows us to have a many to one relationship directory entries to >> extensions. This is what we use as our public facing telephone directory. >> >> Unless there is another directory search option available with jabber (over >> expressway), it means that only those users that are imported via AD into >> CUCM will be searchable. >> >> In our current deployment, only a subset of LDAP entries are populated into >> AD. So we wouldn't get the correct results. >> >> Question: when it does return results, does it return the telephone number >> in the user's AD profile? Or does it use the primary extension configured? >> >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Dec 18, 2014, at 6:31 PM, Josh Warcop <j...@warcop.com> wrote: >> >>> I'm trying to understand what you're pointing out. Expressway is an HTTPS >>> proxy so there wouldn't be any LDAP sent over the Internet. So UDS serves >>> that purpose so that off premise clients can search the directory. >>> >>> From what I'm reading this is more of your security setup and nothing wrong >>> particularly with UDS. Are you saying your directory on CUCM is invalid? >>> >>> Direct Access isn't supported and I wouldn't recommend it. There are more >>> clients to consider than endpoints that run Windows. >>> >>> Sent from my Windows Phone >>> From: Lelio Fulgenzi >>> Sent: 12/18/2014 6:14 PM >>> To: NateCCIE >>> Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net >>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Expressway 8.5 is out >>> >>> I notice contact search is limited to UDS still. I was hoping LDAP would >>> have been enabled. >>> >>> We have scenarios where people don't want their extensions known, so >>> through LDAP we publish public extensions for those people. >>> >>> With UDS, it looks like it reveals this information, especially if you dial >>> via URI. >>> >>> It also seems there are are few limitations when using the expressway >>> solution vs direct access. >>> >>> In all honest, I was hoping to deploy expressway as an on-campus solution >>> as well. >>> >>> We don't have a split view DNS set up, which I'm gathering is what is >>> necessary to deploy Expressway for MRA only for off campus. >>> >>> I'm just starting to read up on this stuff, so I might be off my rocker in >>> some areas. :) >>> >>> Lelio >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Dec 18, 2014, at 5:01 PM, NateCCIE <natec...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Talking about stuff sneaking out, expressway 8.5 is on CCO. Here is the >>>> release notes: >>>> >>>> http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/expressway/release_note/Cisco-Expressway-Release-Note-X8-5.pdf >>>> >>>> >>>> The Expressway can now work with the Cisco DX Series endpoints, and with >>>> the 8800 Series and 7800 >>>> Series IP phones. >>>> -Nate VanMaren >>>> CCIE #7911 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> cisco-voip mailing list >>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net >>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
_______________________________________________ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
