Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Overlapping dial plan

[Michael.Sears]

I would recommend you review the Dial Plan SRND.  I just did a roll-out with 
500 remote sites so you can imagine how many overlapping digits there were.  I 
used 10 digits for Voice Mail with 5 digit internal dialing using variable 
digit dialing with site codes.  There's several ways to do it.  The SRND goes 
over all the dial plans for best practice and overlapping dial plans.

 
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/srnd/8x/dialplan.html#wp1150620

Michael Sears, CCIE(V)#38404
   
"Designing and Implementing Cisco Unified Communications on Unified Computing 
Systems"


___
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Best practice for binding interfaces to sccp and CUE

[singh]

Any update? Original message From:"singh"< singh8...@in.com >Date: 26 Jun 
Subject: Best practice for binding interfaces to sccp and CUETo: 
ccievoicerequ...@onlinestudylist.com; ccievoice@onlinestudylist.comHello 
All,Wondering what is the best practice to bind sccp interface and CUE to .For 
example if I have an interface on the router which is my voice interface and a 
loopback then which as per the best practice can be used for binding ?singhGet 
Yourself a cool, short @in.com Email ID now! Get Yourself a cool, short @in.com 
Email ID now!
___
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] L2 overhead for QoS

[Suresh Bhandari]

As you've read in the QoS SRND, you use 8byte overhead for the FRF.12.

Further, somewhere I read that +5 - 10% bandwidth over-provisioning is
okay.

So, you can use a bandwidth equal to 48k, for four concurrent calls, for
example.

HTH


On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:55 AM, Kapuria, Aman <
aman.kapu...@team.telstra.com> wrote:

> Anyone?
>
> ** **
>
> *Aman *
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Kapuria, Aman
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 26 June 2013 3:31 PM
> *To:* ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com
> *Subject:* L2 overhead for QoS
>
> ** **
>
> Hi All,
>
> ** **
>
> What L2 overhead do you use for frf.12 and MLP when you calculate number
> of calls over a link? Different providers have different approach around
> this. QoS SRND says “Frame Relay adds 4 bytes of Layer 2 overhead; Frame
> Relay with FRF.12 adds 8 bytes.” With frf.12 voice packets don’t get
> fragmented, so do you use 4 bytes for your calculation or 12 or some other
> number? For those who have done this in lab and got 100% for QoS, can they
> please advise what value they used?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Aman
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ___
> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please
> visit www.ipexpert.com
>
> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
> www.PlatinumPlacement.com
>



-- 
Suresh Bhandari
___
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] L2 overhead for QoS

[Kapuria, Aman]

But voice packets font get fragmented when you use frf.12. So why would you use 
8 and not 4?

On 28/06/2013, at 2:07 PM, "Suresh Bhandari" 
mailto:bring...@gmail.com>> wrote:

As you've read in the QoS SRND, you use 8byte overhead for the FRF.12.

Further, somewhere I read that +5 - 10% bandwidth over-provisioning is okay.

So, you can use a bandwidth equal to 48k, for four concurrent calls, for 
example.

HTH


On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:55 AM, Kapuria, Aman 
mailto:aman.kapu...@team.telstra.com>> wrote:
Anyone?

Aman

From: Kapuria, Aman
Sent: Wednesday, 26 June 2013 3:31 PM
To: ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com
Subject: L2 overhead for QoS

Hi All,


What L2 overhead do you use for frf.12 and MLP when you calculate number of 
calls over a link? Different providers have different approach around this. QoS 
SRND says “Frame Relay adds 4 bytes of Layer 2 overhead; Frame Relay with 
FRF.12 adds 8 bytes.” With frf.12 voice packets don’t get fragmented, so do you 
use 4 bytes for your calculation or 12 or some other number? For those who have 
done this in lab and got 100% for QoS, can they please advise what value they 
used?
Thanks in advance
Aman





___
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com



--
Suresh Bhandari
___
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Gatekeeper is unable to reach SiteB under Call Forward UnRegister

[Hesham Abdelkereem]

Guys I got the fix,

The problem was a typo error due to my fast copy and paste

in SB router i type gateway command by default and that resulted the
following

R1#sh gatekee end
GATEKEEPER ENDPOINT REGISTRATION

CallSignalAddr  Port  RASSignalAddr   Port  Zone Name TypeFlags
--- - --- - - -
142.100.64.11   41758 142.100.64.11   32793 GKVOIP-GW
H323-ID: GK-Trunk_1
Voice Capacity Max.=  Avail.=  Current.= 0
142.100.64.12   37277 142.100.64.12   32790 GKVOIP-GW
H323-ID: GK-Trunk_2
Voice Capacity Max.=  Avail.=  Current.= 0
142.102.65.254  1720  142.102.65.254  57138 GKH323-GW
E164-ID: 3002
E164-ID: 3001
Voice Capacity Max.=  Avail.=  Current.= 0
142.102.66.254  1720  142.102.66.254  51323 GKH323-GW
H323-ID: CUCME
Voice Capacity Max.=  Avail.=  Current.= 0
Total number of active registrations = 4

R1#



so it was invalid

when i deleted the gateway from SiteB gateway it fixed the problem



Thank you very much guys
Special Thanks to Bill , Ramy and Somphol

Hesham


On 23 June 2013 04:00, Somphol Boonjing  wrote:

> Sorry, I assume wrongly that SBGW will ever take the call for "3...".
>
>  Your normal path is for both "2..." and "3..." to be pointing to
> CUCMTRUNK only.  Given that both SBGW and CUCMTRUNK are registered to the
> same zone, it would be necessary to exclude SBGW from ever getting the call
> destined to "2..." or "3...".
>
> gw-type-prefix 1#* default-technology
> zone prefix THEZONE 3... gw-priority 0 SBGW
> zone prefix THEZONE 3... gw-priority 10 CUCMTRUNK
> zone prefix THEZONE 2... gw-priority 0 SBGW
> zone prefix THEZONE 2... gw-priority 10 CUCMTRUNK
>
> Sorry for the confusion.
>
> Even if you don't have "gw-priority", when SBGW is unreachable, it should
> not cause the problem and call should be sent correctly to CUCMTRUNK.
>
> Then, it is less likely that the problem would be in the gatekeeper call
> leg, unless you use some sort of tech-prefix in addition to zone prefix.
>
> Regards,
> --Somphol
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Somphol Boonjing wrote:
>
>> Hi Hesham,
>>
>> Essentially, the gw-priority is to advise the gatekeeper to choose SBGW
>> over CUCMTRUNK.   The higher the number, the higher the priority.   Without
>> this it will distribute the call to "3XXX" to both CUCMTRUNK and SBGW in a
>> round robin fashion.
>>
>> If you give higher priority to SBGW, then call will be routed to SBGW
>> unless it is not available.
>>
>>
>> gw-type-prefix 1#* default-technology
>> zone prefix THEZONE 3... gw-priority 100 SBGW
>> zone prefix THEZONE 3... gw-priority 10 CUCMTRUNK
>>
>> I'm fairly new to gatekeeper myself, so it would be great if you can lab
>> it up and see if I am wildly off the mark.
>>
>> Regards,
>> --Somphol.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 8:37 PM, Hesham Abdelkereem <
>> heshamcentr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Somphol,
>>>
>>> HQ & SB are in the same zone
>>> and i don't understand
>>>
>>> zone prefix THEZONE 3... gw-priority 100 SBGW
>>>
>>> I think I should disregard it as they are int he same zone
>>> It's all just the CUCM Trunk and has both 2XXX and 3XXX
>>> I think that could make it work
>>>
>>> Thank you very much for ur great input
>>> I will test it and let u know
>>>
>>> Thank you very much for ur great efforts.
>>>
>>> On Jun 23, 2013, at 3:30 AM, Somphol Boonjing  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Hesham,
>>>
>>> If the problem is on the gatekeeper, it could be as simple as the zone
>>> prefix not configured to point to CUCM for the pattern "3..."
>>>
>>> Given that in normal situation, the zone prefix would be pointing "SBGW"
>>> either dynamically or statically.
>>>
>>> The configure with static zone prefix set would look similar to this.
>>>
>>> gatekeeeper
>>> ...
>>> ...
>>> gw-type-prefix 1#* default-technology
>>> zone prefix THEZONE 3... gw-priority 100 SBGW
>>> zone prefix THEZONE 3... gw-priority 10 CUCMTRUNK
>>> ...
>>> ...
>>>
>>> If your CUCM & SBGW happens to be in the different zones, that is a
>>> different matter.  Looking at a configuration guide for "zone prefix"
>>> command, I don't think it is possible for a zone prefix to point to two
>>> different local zones. (See:
>>> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_3/vvf_r/vrg_z1_ps1839_TSD_Products_Command_Reference_Chapter.html#wp1002271
>>> )
>>>
>>> So, in essence, I doubt that this would work.
>>>
>>> gatekeeeper
>>> ...
>>> ...
>>> gw-type-prefix 1#* default-technology
>>> zone prefix SBZONE 3... gw-priority 100 SBGW
>>> zone prefix CUCMZONE 3... gw-priority 10 CUCMTRUNK
>>> ...
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> --Somphol.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Hesham Abdelkereem <
>>> heshamcentr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Hi Somphol,

 Of course all your sequence of ideas definitely make sense.
 However, I did exactly all that

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] L2 overhead for QoS

[Kapuria, Aman]

Anyone?

Aman

From: Kapuria, Aman
Sent: Wednesday, 26 June 2013 3:31 PM
To: ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com
Subject: L2 overhead for QoS

Hi All,


What L2 overhead do you use for frf.12 and MLP when you calculate number of 
calls over a link? Different providers have different approach around this. QoS 
SRND says "Frame Relay adds 4 bytes of Layer 2 overhead; Frame Relay with 
FRF.12 adds 8 bytes." With frf.12 voice packets don't get fragmented, so do you 
use 4 bytes for your calculation or 12 or some other number? For those who have 
done this in lab and got 100% for QoS, can they please advise what value they 
used?
Thanks in advance
Aman




___
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] quto qos voip trust in site B

[ikizoo hello]

it dose not matter marking happen or not actaully.
in the lab, u have to read question carefully, question state clearly it is 
trusted or not.

Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:04:57 -0700
From: karen.johnson...@yahoo.ca
To: ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com
CC: ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com
Subject: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] quto qos voip trust in site B

hi folks,
 
is it better to use "auto qos voip trust"  or "auto qos voip"  for SB site in 
exam.
my understanding is we have to use "auto qos voip" , since we can't trust other 
devices for providing marking.
 
advice pls?
 
tks
K




From: Karen Johnson 
To: Edgar Feliz  
Cc: "ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com"  
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 10:13:47 AM
Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] quto qos voip trust in WAN






hi edgar,
 
I mean for WAN qos on Sb site in lab exam. do we need "auto qos voip"  or "auto 
qos voip trust" ?
 
tks
K





From: Edgar Feliz 
To: Karen Johnson  
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 7:06:51 PM
Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] quto qos voip trust in WAN




Hi Karen, 


I have not seen a requirement for QoS on SB or SC on the LAN in the lab all QoS 
question for LAN are on HQ Switch only. Unless you are not referring to lab 
specifically here.


Edgar



On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 2:14 AM, Karen Johnson  
wrote:




hi all,
 
my understanding is when we used "quto qos voip trust" in HQ router , because 
we trust classification from SWITCH that connect to HQ router.
 
And in SB router, we can't use "quto qos voip trust" but "auto qos voip" only 
because SB site do not have SWITCH. 
 
is this understanding correct ?
 
tks
K
___
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
http://www.ipexpert.com/

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
http://www.platinumplacement.com/




___
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com


___
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com ___
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com

[OSL | CCIE_Voice] quto qos voip trust in site B

[Karen Johnson]

hi folks,
 
is it better to use "auto qos voip trust"  or "auto qos voip"  for SB site in 
exam.
my understanding is we have to use "auto qos voip" , since we can't trust other 
devices for providing marking.
 
advice pls?
 
tks
K



From: Karen Johnson 
To: Edgar Feliz  
Cc: "ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com"  
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 10:13:47 AM
Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] quto qos voip trust in WAN



hi edgar,
 
I mean for WAN qos on Sb site in lab exam. do we need "auto qos voip"  or "auto 
qos voip trust" ?
 
tks
K



From: Edgar Feliz 
To: Karen Johnson  
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 7:06:51 PM
Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] quto qos voip trust in WAN



Hi Karen, 

I have not seen a requirement for QoS on SB or SC on the LAN in the lab all QoS 
question for LAN are on HQ Switch only. Unless you are not referring to lab 
specifically here.

Edgar



On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 2:14 AM, Karen Johnson  
wrote:

hi all,
>
>my understanding is when we used "quto qos voip trust" in HQ router , because 
>we trust classification from SWITCH that connect to HQ router.
>
>And in SB router, we can't use "quto qos voip trust" but "auto qos voip" only 
>because SB site do not have SWITCH. 
>
>is this understanding correct ?
>
>tksK    
>___
>For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please 
>visit http://www.ipexpert.com/
>
>Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
>http://www.platinumplacement.com/
>



___
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com___
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] 3750 IOS version in lab

[Brian Valentine]

Experts,

Does anyone know what version of software is tested on the 3750?  Has Cisco
publicly made remarks about what specific IOS version is in the lab exam?
All I know is 12.2.  Anyone know anything more specific than that?

I have a hard time believing the answer is no.

Thanks,

Brian

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Brian Valentine wrote:

> Experts,
>
> Does anyone know what version of software is tested on the 3750?  Has
> Cisco publicly made remarks about what specific IOS version is in the lab
> exam?  All I know is 12.2.  Anyone know anything more specific than that?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Brian
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Brian Valentine wrote:
>
>> Bump
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Brian Valentine 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Unless it breaks NDA, can someone please tell me what version of IOS is
>>> running on the 3750 switch in the lab exam?  The blueprint is generic in
>>> that it just says 12.2 Mainline.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Brian Valentine
>>>
>>
>>
>
___
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Voice mail issue in Overlapping dial plan

[ccieid1ot]

Is this for a CCIE Lab or production environment?


On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Dharambir kumar varma <
dharambi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi All,
> We have same extension range of 65XX both in Location A as well as in
> Location B. For dialing Location B extension we use prefix 81 .
> For dialling  Location A extension  we use prefix 80 .
> Location A to Location B-- 8065XX
> Location B to Location A-  8165XX
> Now the problem is if we want to assign voicemail to the user then
> only one user can avail the facility.
> For example :-
> In Loation A, the extension number 5811 is for user A
>  In Location B the etension 5811  is for User B.
> Now we can only assign the voice mail to only one user.
>
> What is the solution...
> Many Thanks in advance
>
>
>
>
> --
>  Regards,
>  Dharambir Kumar
> ___
> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please
> visit www.ipexpert.com
>
> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
> www.PlatinumPlacement.com
>



-- 
duy
CCIE #27737 Voice
___
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Voice mail issue in Overlapping dial plan

[ccieid1ot]

You can create another partition and assigned the extensions accordingly in
Unity Connection, don't forget to assign them to CSS.


On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:38 AM, ccieid1ot  wrote:

> Is this for a CCIE Lab or production environment?
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Dharambir kumar varma <
> dharambi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>> We have same extension range of 65XX both in Location A as well as in
>> Location B. For dialing Location B extension we use prefix 81 .
>> For dialling  Location A extension  we use prefix 80 .
>> Location A to Location B-- 8065XX
>> Location B to Location A-  8165XX
>> Now the problem is if we want to assign voicemail to the user then
>> only one user can avail the facility.
>> For example :-
>> In Loation A, the extension number 5811 is for user A
>>  In Location B the etension 5811  is for User B.
>> Now we can only assign the voice mail to only one user.
>>
>> What is the solution...
>> Many Thanks in advance
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>  Regards,
>>  Dharambir Kumar
>> ___
>> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please
>> visit www.ipexpert.com
>>
>> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
>> www.PlatinumPlacement.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
> duy
> CCIE #27737 Voice
>



-- 
duy
CCIE #27737 Voice
___
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com

[OSL | CCIE_Voice] Voice mail issue in Overlapping dial plan

[Dharambir kumar varma]

Hi All,
We have same extension range of 65XX both in Location A as well as in
Location B. For dialing Location B extension we use prefix 81 .
For dialling  Location A extension  we use prefix 80 .
Location A to Location B-- 8065XX
Location B to Location A-  8165XX
Now the problem is if we want to assign voicemail to the user then
only one user can avail the facility.
For example :-
In Loation A, the extension number 5811 is for user A
 In Location B the etension 5811  is for User B.
Now we can only assign the voice mail to only one user.

What is the solution...
Many Thanks in advance




-- 
 Regards,
 Dharambir Kumar
___
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com

[OSL | CCIE_Voice] guys need help for ipcc extension..

[Amit Sharma]

guys...

really hard time...

i applied config...to enable ipcc extension in cucm..\\\

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/custcosw/ps1846/products_tech_note09186a008088cff0.shtml

Cisco CallManager 5.x, ICD Extension is known as IPCC Express Extension.
You can update the IPCC Express Extension on Cisco CallManager 5.x when you
run the

 *run sql update processconfig set paramvalue="T" *

*
*

*where paramname like ‘IAQInstalledFlag’* command in CLI mode on the
publisher server.

after that i restart cucm servers...when comes back server...i can ssh but
not able to login cucm admin...


but after that getting db error...when login on cucm...

i used this link to fix it...but not working...successful..

https://supportforums.cisco.com/docs/DOC-27232

can someone tell me how fix it?





-- 
Thanks & Regard's
Amit Sharma
___
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com