With the new Cisco Headsets that adds another level of software management too 
;)

Stephen

On 1 May 2018, at 20:34, Brian Meade <bmead...@vt.edu<mailto:bmead...@vt.edu>> 
wrote:

I can't believe there's still no syncing of TFTP/MOH Files or at least making 
it the default option.  Uploading things to every node over-complicates things. 
 And TFTP File Management has no bulk upload which is super annoying when I 
rebuild subscribers on an upgrade.  I keep meaning to make a script for that 
bulk TFTP upload.

There definitely needs to be some overhaul of phone firmware management.

We'll probably just see the phones start reaching out to the Webex cloud 
nightly to update their phone firmware as we further this cloud transition.

We have to make sure this stuff doesn't get too easy for the customers and kill 
off all our jobs too :P

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 3:25 PM, Anthony Holloway 
<avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com<mailto:avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com>> wrote:
"With upgrades, some phones begin upgrading before I can switch this back 
though."

I've had this happen more times than I'm comfortable admitting, and especially, 
I've already set the expectation that phones will not upgrade.

Installing the COP and then changing the Device Defaults is six of one and a 
half-dozen of the other, when compared to uploading the few files in the ZIP, 
and not touching the defaults.  To each his own, of course.

"I think some customers would just never update device firmware if it didn't 
force it on them though."

There are people still running 2800 ISRs, MCS, CUCM 7.x, and even 7940s.  Is 
firmware really the place to start forcing people to modernize?  I think it 
would be best to let the customer choose, unless they move to a cloud based 
solution.

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 2:13 PM Brian Meade 
<bmead...@vt.edu<mailto:bmead...@vt.edu>> wrote:
I think we've got to remember a lot of different types of customers use CUCM.

I've got some customers that need the ease of use with the COP file updating 
the device defaults automatically.  I actually use this method most of the time 
as well and just revert the device default change before restarting TFTP and 
resetting any phones.

The device packs and upgrades are a bit annoying to me with it changing all my 
phone firmware.  I usually Bulk Export then Device Defaults and re-import after 
to avoid this.  With upgrades, some phones begin upgrading before I can switch 
this back though.  I think some customers would just never update device 
firmware if it didn't force it on them though.

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 1:04 PM, Anthony Holloway 
<avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com<mailto:avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Thanks, now I want to watch that movie again.  It's been a looong time.

I can agree that support is not black and white.  Though, do consider the Cisco 
Partner's perspective, when Customers ask for recommendations on what they 
should be doing.  Our responses should always be motivated by keeping them on 
supported combinations of: configurations, hardware, and software.

And back to my original point, having firmware delivered via CUCM upgrades and 
Device Packs is hurting that effort, because the collateral upgrading which is 
occurring, is seldom what you want.  I.e., Production is not ready for the new 
firmware, or it's older than what you are already running.

Case in point: I have a customer right now with ones of thousands of phones, 
looking to add support for the Webex Room Kit device, so we need a Device Pack, 
but they are not ready to roll out a major firmware upgrade from 11.x to 12.x 
on all of their 78/8800 series phones.  Therefore, I have to now dance around 
the firmware upgrade, in what should be an otherwise easy task of applying 
support for just this specific device model.

I'd be curious to know how many people are actually delivering phone firmware 
via Device Packs, versus CUCM upgrades, versus COP files, versus ZIPs.

For me, it goes like this:

1. CUCM Upgrades are for upgrading CUCM, I typically freeze the existing phone 
firmware upgrades (and will do them pre- or post-upgrade of CUCM)
2. Device Packs are for adding support for newer models, I typically freeze the 
existing phone firmware upgrades
3. COP Files are almost never used for upgrading phone firmware, they change 
the device defaults, when my intention is never to upgrade 100% of a model 
right from the start (pilot first)
    *If COPs didn't change device defaults, I'd likely use these over ZIP 
files.  Do these restart TFTP automatically?  I cannot recall.
4. ZIP Files are my preferred approach, because they are low risk because I can 
easily control their distribution in the environment (like running a pilot 
first)



On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 12:45 PM Ryan Ratliff (rratliff) 
<rratl...@cisco.com<mailto:rratl...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Since Cisco already drops support for all firmware older than the most recent 
firmware:


“You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means”.

In all seriousness, and as the author of the document you quoted, there’s a 
reason why the bulk of that document is dedicated to explaining the fact that 
that the word “support” can mean many things, and even lists examples to 
highlight this point.

I would also like to point out the fact that said document describes itself as 
a “policy”, and policies don’t exist in a vacuum. They exist because there are 
situations that require them to be applied, and it’s generally helpful when a 
company you work with to publicly document whatever policy they are applying to 
you. Equally important is that you are told exactly how and why that policy is 
being applied to your situation.

All of that said my point is that the word “support” gets thrown around a lot 
in the customer support business. We all should be certain to explain exactly 
what version of the word we mean when using it, and if you find yourself on the 
receiving end of a policy that limits some form of support for which you feel 
you are entitled, you owe it to yourself and the other person to ask for 
clarification.

Anyone that can’t provide that clarification or context is either being lazy or 
doesn’t know what they are talking about.

-Ryan

On Apr 30, 2018, at 9:06 AM, Anthony Holloway 
<avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com<mailto:avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I wish CUCM didn't ship with newer phone firmware.

Since Cisco already drops support for all firmware older than the most recent 
firmware:

- For each IP Phone model, once Cisco releases a new firmware version, the 
older versions are no longer supported.
- Cisco expects customers who encounter a problem on an older version of 
firmware to test the latest firmware on a subset of phones in order to confirm 
that the problem still exists.
Source: 
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/collaboration-endpoints/unified-ip-phone-7900-series/116684-technote-ipphone-00.html

And most people agree that you should upgrade firmware before a CUCM upgrade 
anyway, just remove firmware from CUCM.

Not too mention it clutters up TFTP.

I also think that the firmware should be decoupled from the Device Packs.  When 
adding support for a single model phone, rarely am I also trying to upgrade 
100% of the phones in the environment too.

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 8:22 PM Charles Goldsmith 
<wo...@justfamily.org<mailto:wo...@justfamily.org>> wrote:
Since the 8832 is a dual bank phone, shouldn't it have the old image on it in 
the backup bank?  Maybe hardcoding the old image on the phone configuration and 
doing a reset will cause it to boot from it?


On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 7:06 PM Ryan Huff 
<ryanh...@outlook.com<mailto:ryanh...@outlook.com>> wrote:
Sounds like the ole’ ‘step upgrade’ issue that plagued the 79xx series back in 
the 8.x days ....

My guess is they don’t actually need RMA’ed, just the easiest way to deal with 
it ....

I’d flash the phones and advertise an isolated tftp server to them with the 
firmware load and XML bootstrap file. The phones aren’t working now, so 
flashing them and then still not getting them to load right isn’t going to make 
it any worse.

Use DNS in the DHCP scope in your isolation network with the TFTP server and 
pcap/debug the DNS queries to see the bootstrap and load files it’s looking for.

In the 79xx series back in the day when I would perform this Lazarus trick for 
some lucky customers; the bootstrap filename was XMLDefault.cnf.xml. Not sure 
if it’s the same nowadays though.

Here is the Cisco doc on the procedure for the older stuff .... worth a shot 
but not sure if it still works on the newer gear.

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/unified-communications/unified-communications-manager-callmanager/200582-Update-Cisco-IP-Phone-Firmware-through-T.html


-Ryan-

On Apr 29, 2018, at 18:53, Jason Aarons (Americas) 
<jason.aar...@dimensiondata.com<mailto:jason.aar...@dimensiondata.com>> wrote:




I have a customer with four 8832 conference room phones. Their CUCM was running 
version 12.0.1 of the 8832 firmware. These phones shipped with version 
12.0.1SR2. When they registered the first two phones they downgraded from 
12.0.1SR2 to 12.0.1 and are now unusable. They sit on “Connecting” after 
booting up. They do not get an IP address. You cannot set an IP address 
manually. If you reset the phone it doesn’t fix it, nor does a factory 
reset<https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cuipph/8832/english/adminguide/cs88_b_conference-8832-admin-guide-cucm/cs88_b_conference-8832-admin-guide-cucm_chapter_01011.html>
 allow the phone to revert to the firmware they shipped with. Cisco TAC says 
they must be RMA’d. We upgraded CUCM to 12.0.1SR3 and the other two phones 
upgraded fine from 12.0.1SR2 to 12.0.1SR3.

Does anyone have any ideas on what we could do to fix these phones other than 
RMAing them?



Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>



This email and all contents are subject to the following disclaimer:
"http://www.dimensiondata.com/emaildisclaimer";<http://www.dimensiondata.com/Global/Policies/Pages/Email-Disclaimer.aspx>
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip



_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto: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

Reply via email to