Re: [cisco-voip] No Ringing on Some outbound Calls - at&t ipFlex

[Peter Slow]

most skinny endpoints running newish software support early offer
using the sccp getport message, fyi.

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Amit Kumar  wrote:
> Here are my two cents.
>
> Skinny endpoint mostly do an delayed offer, unless we force on sip trunk to
> do an an early offer ( mtp if needed ). as everyone said, ringback behavior
> changes from call manager, as per what we get from called party.
>
> 180 ringing without SDP - > Ringback needs to be generated locally.
> 180 / 183 with SDP - > Called party is going to play ringback for us. We
> just need to establish media by that time ( Similar to what we see in ISDN,
> when we get alerting with an PI of 3 or 8 ). In case of delayed offer, PRACK
> is really an solution to look forward to have media established beforehand.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Brian Meade  wrote:
>>
>> Definitely at least need the "debug ccsip messages" for one of the calls.
>> We'll need to see if AT&T is sending a 180 Ringing or if they're sending a
>> 183 Session Progress w/ SDP to play the ringback inband.  If they're sending
>> a 183 Session Progress, make sure the SIP Profile on the SIP Trunk has the
>> Rel1XX Options set to Send Prack if 18X contains SDP.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Matthew Loraditch
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> We are having a regular but not always issue with a client, where they
>>> are not hearing the ringing when dialing outbound on calls. These are SCCP
>>> 6945s to UCM 9.1.2 SIP Trunked to CUBE and then handoff to at&t’s ipFlex
>>> service.
>>>
>>> If anyone has some suggestions to look at before I spend time with TAC it
>>> would be appreciated!
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Matthew G. Loraditch – CCNP-Voice, CCNA-R&S, CCDA
>>>
>>> 1965 Greenspring Drive
>>> Timonium, MD 21093
>>>
>>> direct voice. 443.541.1518
>>> fax.  410.252.9284
>>>
>>> Twitter  |  Facebook  | Website  |  Email Support
>>>
>>> Support Phone. 410.252.8830
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
>>
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [cisco-voip] No Ringing on Some outbound Calls - at&t ipFlex

[Peter Slow]

so can we see some SIP debugs? =)

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Matthew Loraditch
 wrote:
> Thanks everyone. I am somewhat familiar with all of this, but the refresher
> in the finer details helps.
>
>
>
>
>
> Matthew G. Loraditch – CCNP-Voice, CCNA-R&S, CCDA
>
> 1965 Greenspring Drive
> Timonium, MD 21093
>
> direct voice. 443.541.1518
> fax.  410.252.9284
>
> Twitter  |  Facebook  | Website  |  Email Support
>
> Support Phone. 410.252.8830
>
>
>
>
>
> From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
> Brian Meade
> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 3:51 PM
> To: Peter Slow
> Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] No Ringing on Some outbound Calls - at&t ipFlex
>
>
>
> Correct, it's the PortReq SCCP message and PortRes return message that is
> used for this.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Peter Slow  wrote:
>
> most skinny endpoints running newish software support early offer
> using the sccp getport message, fyi.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Amit Kumar  wrote:
>> Here are my two cents.
>>
>> Skinny endpoint mostly do an delayed offer, unless we force on sip trunk
>> to
>> do an an early offer ( mtp if needed ). as everyone said, ringback
>> behavior
>> changes from call manager, as per what we get from called party.
>>
>> 180 ringing without SDP - > Ringback needs to be generated locally.
>> 180 / 183 with SDP - > Called party is going to play ringback for us. We
>> just need to establish media by that time ( Similar to what we see in
>> ISDN,
>> when we get alerting with an PI of 3 or 8 ). In case of delayed offer,
>> PRACK
>> is really an solution to look forward to have media established
>> beforehand.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Brian Meade  wrote:
>>>
>>> Definitely at least need the "debug ccsip messages" for one of the calls.
>>> We'll need to see if AT&T is sending a 180 Ringing or if they're sending
>>> a
>>> 183 Session Progress w/ SDP to play the ringback inband.  If they're
>>> sending
>>> a 183 Session Progress, make sure the SIP Profile on the SIP Trunk has
>>> the
>>> Rel1XX Options set to Send Prack if 18X contains SDP.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Matthew Loraditch
>>>  wrote:

 We are having a regular but not always issue with a client, where they
 are not hearing the ringing when dialing outbound on calls. These are
 SCCP
 6945s to UCM 9.1.2 SIP Trunked to CUBE and then handoff to at&t’s ipFlex
 service.

 If anyone has some suggestions to look at before I spend time with TAC
 it
 would be appreciated!

 Thanks!





 Matthew G. Loraditch – CCNP-Voice, CCNA-R&S, CCDA

 1965 Greenspring Drive
 Timonium, MD 21093

 direct voice. 443.541.1518
 fax.  410.252.9284

 Twitter  |  Facebook  | Website  |  Email Support

 Support Phone. 410.252.8830






 ___
 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [cisco-voip] No Ringing on Some outbound Calls - at&t ipFlex

[Matthew Loraditch]

Working on it, can't recreate on my IPC and the customer is across the country 
so gotta get somebody to sit down for 10 minutes and do calls with me!


Matthew G. Loraditch – CCNP-Voice, CCNA-R&S, CCDA
1965 Greenspring Drive
Timonium, MD 21093

direct voice. 443.541.1518
fax.  410.252.9284

Twitter  |  Facebook  | Website  |  Email Support
Support Phone. 410.252.8830


-Original Message-
From: Peter Slow [mailto:peter.s...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 4:09 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch
Cc: Brian Meade; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] No Ringing on Some outbound Calls - at&t ipFlex

so can we see some SIP debugs? =)

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Matthew Loraditch 
 wrote:
> Thanks everyone. I am somewhat familiar with all of this, but the 
> refresher in the finer details helps.
>
>
>
>
>
> Matthew G. Loraditch – CCNP-Voice, CCNA-R&S, CCDA
>
> 1965 Greenspring Drive
> Timonium, MD 21093
>
> direct voice. 443.541.1518
> fax.  410.252.9284
>
> Twitter  |  Facebook  | Website  |  Email Support
>
> Support Phone. 410.252.8830
>
>
>
>
>
> From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf 
> Of Brian Meade
> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 3:51 PM
> To: Peter Slow
> Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] No Ringing on Some outbound Calls - at&t 
> ipFlex
>
>
>
> Correct, it's the PortReq SCCP message and PortRes return message that 
> is used for this.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Peter Slow  wrote:
>
> most skinny endpoints running newish software support early offer 
> using the sccp getport message, fyi.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Amit Kumar  wrote:
>> Here are my two cents.
>>
>> Skinny endpoint mostly do an delayed offer, unless we force on sip 
>> trunk to do an an early offer ( mtp if needed ). as everyone said, 
>> ringback behavior changes from call manager, as per what we get from 
>> called party.
>>
>> 180 ringing without SDP - > Ringback needs to be generated locally.
>> 180 / 183 with SDP - > Called party is going to play ringback for us. 
>> We just need to establish media by that time ( Similar to what we see 
>> in ISDN, when we get alerting with an PI of 3 or 8 ). In case of 
>> delayed offer, PRACK is really an solution to look forward to have 
>> media established beforehand.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Brian Meade  wrote:
>>>
>>> Definitely at least need the "debug ccsip messages" for one of the calls.
>>> We'll need to see if AT&T is sending a 180 Ringing or if they're 
>>> sending a
>>> 183 Session Progress w/ SDP to play the ringback inband.  If they're 
>>> sending a 183 Session Progress, make sure the SIP Profile on the SIP 
>>> Trunk has the Rel1XX Options set to Send Prack if 18X contains SDP.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Matthew Loraditch 
>>>  wrote:

 We are having a regular but not always issue with a client, where 
 they are not hearing the ringing when dialing outbound on calls. 
 These are SCCP 6945s to UCM 9.1.2 SIP Trunked to CUBE and then 
 handoff to at&t’s ipFlex service.

 If anyone has some suggestions to look at before I spend time with 
 TAC it would be appreciated!

 Thanks!





 Matthew G. Loraditch – CCNP-Voice, CCNA-R&S, CCDA

 1965 Greenspring Drive
 Timonium, MD 21093

 direct voice. 443.541.1518
 fax.  410.252.9284

 Twitter  |  Facebook  | Website  |  Email Support

 Support Phone. 410.252.8830






 ___
 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [cisco-voip] No Ringing on Some outbound Calls - at&t ipFlex

[Matthew Loraditch]

Thanks everyone. I am somewhat familiar with all of this, but the refresher in 
the finer details helps.


Matthew G. Loraditch – CCNP-Voice, CCNA-R&S, CCDA
1965 Greenspring Drive
Timonium, MD 21093

direct voice. 443.541.1518
fax.  410.252.9284

Twitter  |  
Facebook  | 
Website  |  Email 
Support
Support Phone. 410.252.8830


From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Brian 
Meade
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 3:51 PM
To: Peter Slow
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] No Ringing on Some outbound Calls - at&t ipFlex

Correct, it's the PortReq SCCP message and PortRes return message that is used 
for this.

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Peter Slow 
mailto:peter.s...@gmail.com>> wrote:
most skinny endpoints running newish software support early offer
using the sccp getport message, fyi.

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Amit Kumar 
mailto:amit3@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Here are my two cents.
>
> Skinny endpoint mostly do an delayed offer, unless we force on sip trunk to
> do an an early offer ( mtp if needed ). as everyone said, ringback behavior
> changes from call manager, as per what we get from called party.
>
> 180 ringing without SDP - > Ringback needs to be generated locally.
> 180 / 183 with SDP - > Called party is going to play ringback for us. We
> just need to establish media by that time ( Similar to what we see in ISDN,
> when we get alerting with an PI of 3 or 8 ). In case of delayed offer, PRACK
> is really an solution to look forward to have media established beforehand.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Brian Meade 
> mailto:bmead...@vt.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> Definitely at least need the "debug ccsip messages" for one of the calls.
>> We'll need to see if AT&T is sending a 180 Ringing or if they're sending a
>> 183 Session Progress w/ SDP to play the ringback inband.  If they're sending
>> a 183 Session Progress, make sure the SIP Profile on the SIP Trunk has the
>> Rel1XX Options set to Send Prack if 18X contains SDP.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Matthew Loraditch
>> mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> We are having a regular but not always issue with a client, where they
>>> are not hearing the ringing when dialing outbound on calls. These are SCCP
>>> 6945s to UCM 9.1.2 SIP Trunked to CUBE and then handoff to at&t’s ipFlex
>>> service.
>>>
>>> If anyone has some suggestions to look at before I spend time with TAC it
>>> would be appreciated!
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Matthew G. Loraditch – CCNP-Voice, CCNA-R&S, CCDA
>>>
>>> 1965 Greenspring Drive
>>> Timonium, MD 21093
>>>
>>> direct voice. 443.541.1518
>>> fax.  410.252.9284
>>>
>>> Twitter  |  Facebook  | Website  |  Email Support
>>>
>>> Support Phone. 410.252.8830
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
>>
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [cisco-voip] No Ringing on Some outbound Calls - at&t ipFlex

[Brian Meade]

Correct, it's the PortReq SCCP message and PortRes return message that is
used for this.


On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Peter Slow  wrote:

> most skinny endpoints running newish software support early offer
> using the sccp getport message, fyi.
>
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Amit Kumar  wrote:
> > Here are my two cents.
> >
> > Skinny endpoint mostly do an delayed offer, unless we force on sip trunk
> to
> > do an an early offer ( mtp if needed ). as everyone said, ringback
> behavior
> > changes from call manager, as per what we get from called party.
> >
> > 180 ringing without SDP - > Ringback needs to be generated locally.
> > 180 / 183 with SDP - > Called party is going to play ringback for us. We
> > just need to establish media by that time ( Similar to what we see in
> ISDN,
> > when we get alerting with an PI of 3 or 8 ). In case of delayed offer,
> PRACK
> > is really an solution to look forward to have media established
> beforehand.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Brian Meade  wrote:
> >>
> >> Definitely at least need the "debug ccsip messages" for one of the
> calls.
> >> We'll need to see if AT&T is sending a 180 Ringing or if they're
> sending a
> >> 183 Session Progress w/ SDP to play the ringback inband.  If they're
> sending
> >> a 183 Session Progress, make sure the SIP Profile on the SIP Trunk has
> the
> >> Rel1XX Options set to Send Prack if 18X contains SDP.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Matthew Loraditch
> >>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> We are having a regular but not always issue with a client, where they
> >>> are not hearing the ringing when dialing outbound on calls. These are
> SCCP
> >>> 6945s to UCM 9.1.2 SIP Trunked to CUBE and then handoff to at&t’s
> ipFlex
> >>> service.
> >>>
> >>> If anyone has some suggestions to look at before I spend time with TAC
> it
> >>> would be appreciated!
> >>>
> >>> Thanks!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Matthew G. Loraditch – CCNP-Voice, CCNA-R&S, CCDA
> >>>
> >>> 1965 Greenspring Drive
> >>> Timonium, MD 21093
> >>>
> >>> direct voice. 443.541.1518
> >>> fax.  410.252.9284
> >>>
> >>> Twitter  |  Facebook  | Website  |  Email Support
> >>>
> >>> Support Phone. 410.252.8830
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>> 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
> >>
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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

Re: [cisco-voip] 7970 phones won't register in Lab

[Brian Meade]

Florian,

That's good information but I don't believe it applies here.  This would be
after the phone has its config file and is in the process of registering
via SCCP.  I think the Station Capabilities Response is what is getting
lost here.  I had the same issue trying to register my 7861s on my lab
cluster.  I had to lower the MTU in CUCM in order for the TCP MSS to get
updated to a lower value.

Brian


On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Florian Kroessbacher <
florian.kroessbac...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hy
>
> 8.3.3 does everything through udp tftp
> 9.3. does the new method over http 6970 (so the size is greater than the
> udp 576 Bytes)
>
> look here
>
> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cuipph/7900_series/firmware/9_3_1/release_notes/P790_BK_RF1DAED3_00_rn-9_3_1-7900-series/P790_BK_RF1DAED3_00_rn-9_3_1-7900-series_chapter_00.html#P790_RF_H0DA5A91_00
>
> Florian Kroessbacher
>
> gmail: florian.kroessbac...@gmail.com
>
>
> 2014-06-03 19:38 GMT+02:00 Brian Meade :
>
>> You can do the capture on the CUCM side via CLI but that doesn't help you
>> prove you lost a packet since you'll also need from the phone side via Span
>> To PC:
>>
>> utils network capture eth0 size all count 10 file 7970testreg
>> Press Ctr+c to end the capture after the reject.
>>
>> You can get the capture from RTMT via Trace&Log Central->Collect
>> Files->Packet Capture Logs (on 2nd page).
>> You can also use SFTP:
>> file get activelog platform/cli/7970testreg.cap
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Mike King  wrote:
>>
>>> Hmm..
>>>
>>> Before I bust out my span sessions, is there a way to packet capture
>>> from the CUCM / Phone?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Brian Meade  wrote:
>>>
 Sounds like an MTU issue to me based on those logs.  Get captures from
 the phone side and CUCM.


 On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Mike King  wrote:

> Now I'm more confused.
> Did I pull the right Traces?
>
> 
> 
>
> This is from the Callmanager trace:  (attached is the whole log,
> device MAC is 00193EB6)
>
> 00268821.002 |12:51:14.196 |AppInfo  |EndPointTransientConnection - An
> endpoint attempted to register but did not complete registration 
> Connecting
> Port:2000 Device name:SEP00193EB6 Device IP address:10.103.5.133 
> Device
> type:119 Reason Code:27 Protocol:SCCP Device MAC address:00193EB6
> IPAddressAttributes:3 LastSignalReceived:StationResponseTimerType
> StationState:wait_capabilities App ID:Cisco CallManager Cluster
> ID:StandAloneCluster Node ID:BE6K-CUCM
> 00268821.003 |12:51:14.197 |AlarmErr |AlarmClass: CallManager,
> AlarmName: EndPointTransientConnection, AlarmSeverity: Error, 
> AlarmMessage:
> , AlarmDescription: An endpoint attempted to register but did not complete
> registration, AlarmParameters:  ConnectingPort:2000,
> DeviceName:SEP00193EB6, IPAddress:10.103.5.133, DeviceType:119,
> Reason:27, Protocol:SCCP, MACAddress:00193EB6, IPAddrAttributes:3,
> LastSignalReceived:StationResponseTimerType,
> StationState:wait_capabilities, AppID:Cisco CallManager,
> ClusterID:StandAloneCluster, NodeID:BE6K-CUCM,
> 00268821.004 |12:51:14.197 |AppInfo  |StationD:(0001646)
> RegisterReject text=''.
> 00268822.000 |12:51:14.198 |AppInfo
>  |-->RISCMAccess::DeviceTransientConnection(...)
> 00268823.000 |12:51:14.198 |AppInfo  |Device Transient deviceName :
> SEP00193EB6, IPAddress : 10.103.5.133, IPv6Address : not shown,
> IPv4Attribute :3, IPv6Attribute :0, Protocol : 1
> 00268824.000 |12:51:14.198 |AppInfo  |DebugMsg deviceName :
> SEP00193EB6, DeviceType : 119, risClass: 1
> 00268825.000 |12:51:14.198 |AppInfo
>  |<--RISCMAccess::DeviceTransientConnection(...)
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Ryan Ratliff (rratliff) <
> rratl...@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>> > Any Idea's why the phones are being rejected?
>>
>> Not from that log that I can tell.  Look at the CCM traces.  Obvious
>> reasons are wrong device model in the database, not in the database at 
>> all
>> and auto-registration is disabled, phone configured with a secure profile
>> requiring an LSC and none is present.
>>
>> -Ryan
>>
>> On Jun 3, 2014, at 11:08 AM, Mike King  wrote:
>>
>> We just purchased a BE6K to setup a lab.
>>
>> I've run through the setup, and have that all sorted, or so I think.
>> (So the environment may or may not be the issue)
>>
>> We have a couple of very phones we were going to recycle.
>>
>> Right now we have two, a 7970, and a 7971.
>>
>> The started life phone firmware at 6.0(2).  Utilizing factory
>> defaulting off my laptop, I got them to 8.3.3. (I couldn't get them to
>> associated with 6.0(2))
>>
>> Running 8.3.3, they were able to register, and function.
>>
>> I pushed

Re: [cisco-voip] No Ringing on Some outbound Calls - at&t ipFlex

[Amit Kumar]

Here are my two cents.

Skinny endpoint mostly do an delayed offer, unless we force on sip trunk to
do an an early offer ( mtp if needed ). as everyone said, ringback behavior
changes from call manager, as per what we get from called party.

180 ringing without SDP - > Ringback needs to be generated locally.
180 / 183 with SDP - > Called party is going to play ringback for us. We
just need to establish media by that time ( Similar to what we see in ISDN,
when we get alerting with an PI of 3 or 8 ). In case of delayed offer,
PRACK is really an solution to look forward to have media established
beforehand.




On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Brian Meade  wrote:

> Definitely at least need the "debug ccsip messages" for one of the calls.
>  We'll need to see if AT&T is sending a 180 Ringing or if they're sending a
> 183 Session Progress w/ SDP to play the ringback inband.  If they're
> sending a 183 Session Progress, make sure the SIP Profile on the SIP Trunk
> has the Rel1XX Options set to Send Prack if 18X contains SDP.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Matthew Loraditch <
> mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:
>
>>  We are having a regular but not always issue with a client, where they
>> are not hearing the ringing when dialing outbound on calls. These are SCCP
>> 6945s to UCM 9.1.2 SIP Trunked to CUBE and then handoff to at&t’s ipFlex
>> service.
>>
>> If anyone has some suggestions to look at before I spend time with TAC it
>> would be appreciated!
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Matthew G. Loraditch – CCNP-Voice, CCNA-R&S, CCDA
>>
>> 1965 Greenspring Drive
>> Timonium, MD 21093
>>
>> direct voice. 443.541.1518
>> fax.  410.252.9284
>>
>> Twitter   |  Facebook
>>   | Website
>>   |  Email Support
>> 
>>
>> Support Phone. 410.252.8830
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] 7970 phones won't register in Lab

[Florian Kroessbacher]

Hy

8.3.3 does everything through udp tftp
9.3. does the new method over http 6970 (so the size is greater than the
udp 576 Bytes)

look here
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cuipph/7900_series/firmware/9_3_1/release_notes/P790_BK_RF1DAED3_00_rn-9_3_1-7900-series/P790_BK_RF1DAED3_00_rn-9_3_1-7900-series_chapter_00.html#P790_RF_H0DA5A91_00

Florian Kroessbacher

gmail: florian.kroessbac...@gmail.com


2014-06-03 19:38 GMT+02:00 Brian Meade :

> You can do the capture on the CUCM side via CLI but that doesn't help you
> prove you lost a packet since you'll also need from the phone side via Span
> To PC:
>
> utils network capture eth0 size all count 10 file 7970testreg
> Press Ctr+c to end the capture after the reject.
>
> You can get the capture from RTMT via Trace&Log Central->Collect
> Files->Packet Capture Logs (on 2nd page).
> You can also use SFTP:
> file get activelog platform/cli/7970testreg.cap
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Mike King  wrote:
>
>> Hmm..
>>
>> Before I bust out my span sessions, is there a way to packet capture from
>> the CUCM / Phone?
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Brian Meade  wrote:
>>
>>> Sounds like an MTU issue to me based on those logs.  Get captures from
>>> the phone side and CUCM.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Mike King  wrote:
>>>
 Now I'm more confused.
 Did I pull the right Traces?

 
 

 This is from the Callmanager trace:  (attached is the whole log, device
 MAC is 00193EB6)

 00268821.002 |12:51:14.196 |AppInfo  |EndPointTransientConnection - An
 endpoint attempted to register but did not complete registration Connecting
 Port:2000 Device name:SEP00193EB6 Device IP address:10.103.5.133 Device
 type:119 Reason Code:27 Protocol:SCCP Device MAC address:00193EB6
 IPAddressAttributes:3 LastSignalReceived:StationResponseTimerType
 StationState:wait_capabilities App ID:Cisco CallManager Cluster
 ID:StandAloneCluster Node ID:BE6K-CUCM
 00268821.003 |12:51:14.197 |AlarmErr |AlarmClass: CallManager,
 AlarmName: EndPointTransientConnection, AlarmSeverity: Error, AlarmMessage:
 , AlarmDescription: An endpoint attempted to register but did not complete
 registration, AlarmParameters:  ConnectingPort:2000,
 DeviceName:SEP00193EB6, IPAddress:10.103.5.133, DeviceType:119,
 Reason:27, Protocol:SCCP, MACAddress:00193EB6, IPAddrAttributes:3,
 LastSignalReceived:StationResponseTimerType,
 StationState:wait_capabilities, AppID:Cisco CallManager,
 ClusterID:StandAloneCluster, NodeID:BE6K-CUCM,
 00268821.004 |12:51:14.197 |AppInfo  |StationD:(0001646)
 RegisterReject text=''.
 00268822.000 |12:51:14.198 |AppInfo
  |-->RISCMAccess::DeviceTransientConnection(...)
 00268823.000 |12:51:14.198 |AppInfo  |Device Transient deviceName :
 SEP00193EB6, IPAddress : 10.103.5.133, IPv6Address : not shown,
 IPv4Attribute :3, IPv6Attribute :0, Protocol : 1
 00268824.000 |12:51:14.198 |AppInfo  |DebugMsg deviceName :
 SEP00193EB6, DeviceType : 119, risClass: 1
 00268825.000 |12:51:14.198 |AppInfo
  |<--RISCMAccess::DeviceTransientConnection(...)


 On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Ryan Ratliff (rratliff) <
 rratl...@cisco.com> wrote:

> > Any Idea's why the phones are being rejected?
>
> Not from that log that I can tell.  Look at the CCM traces.  Obvious
> reasons are wrong device model in the database, not in the database at all
> and auto-registration is disabled, phone configured with a secure profile
> requiring an LSC and none is present.
>
> -Ryan
>
> On Jun 3, 2014, at 11:08 AM, Mike King  wrote:
>
> We just purchased a BE6K to setup a lab.
>
> I've run through the setup, and have that all sorted, or so I think.
> (So the environment may or may not be the issue)
>
> We have a couple of very phones we were going to recycle.
>
> Right now we have two, a 7970, and a 7971.
>
> The started life phone firmware at 6.0(2).  Utilizing factory
> defaulting off my laptop, I got them to 8.3.3. (I couldn't get them to
> associated with 6.0(2))
>
> Running 8.3.3, they were able to register, and function.
>
> I pushed the firmware up to 9.3(1SR3.1S)
>
> Now none of the phones are registering.  I've read the release notes,
> and I should be able to goto 9.3.1 from 8.3.3 directly on these phones,
> with no further intermediate releases.
>
> Attached is one of the phone logs.  Both phone's are showing the same
> behavior.
>
> The phone is just sitting there with the wrong date and time in the
> corner, and every once and awhile will print out "Registration Rejected: "
>
> Any Idea's why the phones are being rejected?
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@pu

Re: [cisco-voip] 7970 phones won't register in Lab

[Brian Meade]

You can do the capture on the CUCM side via CLI but that doesn't help you
prove you lost a packet since you'll also need from the phone side via Span
To PC:

utils network capture eth0 size all count 10 file 7970testreg
Press Ctr+c to end the capture after the reject.

You can get the capture from RTMT via Trace&Log Central->Collect
Files->Packet Capture Logs (on 2nd page).
You can also use SFTP:
file get activelog platform/cli/7970testreg.cap


On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Mike King  wrote:

> Hmm..
>
> Before I bust out my span sessions, is there a way to packet capture from
> the CUCM / Phone?
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Brian Meade  wrote:
>
>> Sounds like an MTU issue to me based on those logs.  Get captures from
>> the phone side and CUCM.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Mike King  wrote:
>>
>>> Now I'm more confused.
>>> Did I pull the right Traces?
>>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>>
>>> This is from the Callmanager trace:  (attached is the whole log, device
>>> MAC is 00193EB6)
>>>
>>> 00268821.002 |12:51:14.196 |AppInfo  |EndPointTransientConnection - An
>>> endpoint attempted to register but did not complete registration Connecting
>>> Port:2000 Device name:SEP00193EB6 Device IP address:10.103.5.133 Device
>>> type:119 Reason Code:27 Protocol:SCCP Device MAC address:00193EB6
>>> IPAddressAttributes:3 LastSignalReceived:StationResponseTimerType
>>> StationState:wait_capabilities App ID:Cisco CallManager Cluster
>>> ID:StandAloneCluster Node ID:BE6K-CUCM
>>> 00268821.003 |12:51:14.197 |AlarmErr |AlarmClass: CallManager,
>>> AlarmName: EndPointTransientConnection, AlarmSeverity: Error, AlarmMessage:
>>> , AlarmDescription: An endpoint attempted to register but did not complete
>>> registration, AlarmParameters:  ConnectingPort:2000,
>>> DeviceName:SEP00193EB6, IPAddress:10.103.5.133, DeviceType:119,
>>> Reason:27, Protocol:SCCP, MACAddress:00193EB6, IPAddrAttributes:3,
>>> LastSignalReceived:StationResponseTimerType,
>>> StationState:wait_capabilities, AppID:Cisco CallManager,
>>> ClusterID:StandAloneCluster, NodeID:BE6K-CUCM,
>>> 00268821.004 |12:51:14.197 |AppInfo  |StationD:(0001646)
>>> RegisterReject text=''.
>>> 00268822.000 |12:51:14.198 |AppInfo
>>>  |-->RISCMAccess::DeviceTransientConnection(...)
>>> 00268823.000 |12:51:14.198 |AppInfo  |Device Transient deviceName :
>>> SEP00193EB6, IPAddress : 10.103.5.133, IPv6Address : not shown,
>>> IPv4Attribute :3, IPv6Attribute :0, Protocol : 1
>>> 00268824.000 |12:51:14.198 |AppInfo  |DebugMsg deviceName :
>>> SEP00193EB6, DeviceType : 119, risClass: 1
>>> 00268825.000 |12:51:14.198 |AppInfo
>>>  |<--RISCMAccess::DeviceTransientConnection(...)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Ryan Ratliff (rratliff) <
>>> rratl...@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>
 > Any Idea's why the phones are being rejected?

 Not from that log that I can tell.  Look at the CCM traces.  Obvious
 reasons are wrong device model in the database, not in the database at all
 and auto-registration is disabled, phone configured with a secure profile
 requiring an LSC and none is present.

 -Ryan

 On Jun 3, 2014, at 11:08 AM, Mike King  wrote:

 We just purchased a BE6K to setup a lab.

 I've run through the setup, and have that all sorted, or so I think.
 (So the environment may or may not be the issue)

 We have a couple of very phones we were going to recycle.

 Right now we have two, a 7970, and a 7971.

 The started life phone firmware at 6.0(2).  Utilizing factory
 defaulting off my laptop, I got them to 8.3.3. (I couldn't get them to
 associated with 6.0(2))

 Running 8.3.3, they were able to register, and function.

 I pushed the firmware up to 9.3(1SR3.1S)

 Now none of the phones are registering.  I've read the release notes,
 and I should be able to goto 9.3.1 from 8.3.3 directly on these phones,
 with no further intermediate releases.

 Attached is one of the phone logs.  Both phone's are showing the same
 behavior.

 The phone is just sitting there with the wrong date and time in the
 corner, and every once and awhile will print out "Registration Rejected: "

 Any Idea's why the phones are being rejected?
 ___
 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] 7970 phones won't register in Lab

[Mike King]

Hmm..

Before I bust out my span sessions, is there a way to packet capture from
the CUCM / Phone?


On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Brian Meade  wrote:

> Sounds like an MTU issue to me based on those logs.  Get captures from the
> phone side and CUCM.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Mike King  wrote:
>
>> Now I'm more confused.
>> Did I pull the right Traces?
>>
>> 
>> 
>>
>> This is from the Callmanager trace:  (attached is the whole log, device
>> MAC is 00193EB6)
>>
>> 00268821.002 |12:51:14.196 |AppInfo  |EndPointTransientConnection - An
>> endpoint attempted to register but did not complete registration Connecting
>> Port:2000 Device name:SEP00193EB6 Device IP address:10.103.5.133 Device
>> type:119 Reason Code:27 Protocol:SCCP Device MAC address:00193EB6
>> IPAddressAttributes:3 LastSignalReceived:StationResponseTimerType
>> StationState:wait_capabilities App ID:Cisco CallManager Cluster
>> ID:StandAloneCluster Node ID:BE6K-CUCM
>> 00268821.003 |12:51:14.197 |AlarmErr |AlarmClass: CallManager, AlarmName:
>> EndPointTransientConnection, AlarmSeverity: Error, AlarmMessage: ,
>> AlarmDescription: An endpoint attempted to register but did not complete
>> registration, AlarmParameters:  ConnectingPort:2000,
>> DeviceName:SEP00193EB6, IPAddress:10.103.5.133, DeviceType:119,
>> Reason:27, Protocol:SCCP, MACAddress:00193EB6, IPAddrAttributes:3,
>> LastSignalReceived:StationResponseTimerType,
>> StationState:wait_capabilities, AppID:Cisco CallManager,
>> ClusterID:StandAloneCluster, NodeID:BE6K-CUCM,
>> 00268821.004 |12:51:14.197 |AppInfo  |StationD:(0001646)
>> RegisterReject text=''.
>> 00268822.000 |12:51:14.198 |AppInfo
>>  |-->RISCMAccess::DeviceTransientConnection(...)
>> 00268823.000 |12:51:14.198 |AppInfo  |Device Transient deviceName :
>> SEP00193EB6, IPAddress : 10.103.5.133, IPv6Address : not shown,
>> IPv4Attribute :3, IPv6Attribute :0, Protocol : 1
>> 00268824.000 |12:51:14.198 |AppInfo  |DebugMsg deviceName :
>> SEP00193EB6, DeviceType : 119, risClass: 1
>> 00268825.000 |12:51:14.198 |AppInfo
>>  |<--RISCMAccess::DeviceTransientConnection(...)
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Ryan Ratliff (rratliff) <
>> rratl...@cisco.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > Any Idea's why the phones are being rejected?
>>>
>>> Not from that log that I can tell.  Look at the CCM traces.  Obvious
>>> reasons are wrong device model in the database, not in the database at all
>>> and auto-registration is disabled, phone configured with a secure profile
>>> requiring an LSC and none is present.
>>>
>>> -Ryan
>>>
>>> On Jun 3, 2014, at 11:08 AM, Mike King  wrote:
>>>
>>> We just purchased a BE6K to setup a lab.
>>>
>>> I've run through the setup, and have that all sorted, or so I think. (So
>>> the environment may or may not be the issue)
>>>
>>> We have a couple of very phones we were going to recycle.
>>>
>>> Right now we have two, a 7970, and a 7971.
>>>
>>> The started life phone firmware at 6.0(2).  Utilizing factory defaulting
>>> off my laptop, I got them to 8.3.3. (I couldn't get them to associated with
>>> 6.0(2))
>>>
>>> Running 8.3.3, they were able to register, and function.
>>>
>>> I pushed the firmware up to 9.3(1SR3.1S)
>>>
>>> Now none of the phones are registering.  I've read the release notes,
>>> and I should be able to goto 9.3.1 from 8.3.3 directly on these phones,
>>> with no further intermediate releases.
>>>
>>> Attached is one of the phone logs.  Both phone's are showing the same
>>> behavior.
>>>
>>> The phone is just sitting there with the wrong date and time in the
>>> corner, and every once and awhile will print out "Registration Rejected: "
>>>
>>> Any Idea's why the phones are being rejected?
>>> ___
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] 7970 phones won't register in Lab

[Ryan Ratliff (rratliff)]

For SCCP phones you want to find the TCP handle so you can see messages back 
and forth.

00267710.001 |12:43:13.166 |AppInfo  |StationD:(0001642) Device 
SEP00193EB6, --INFO-- line_register_LineRegisterRes registering line=1 and 
maxline=1
00267710.002 |12:43:13.166 |AppInfo  |StationD:(0001642) 
sendCapabilitiesReq Send StationOutputRegisterAck
00267710.003 |12:43:13.166 |AppInfo  |StationD:(0001642) RegisterAck 
keepAliveInterval=30 dateTemplate='M/D/YA' secondaryKeepAliveInterval=60.
00267710.004 |12:43:13.166 |AppInfo  |StationD:(0001642) Send 
StationOutputCapabilitiesReq in sendCapabilitiesReq
00267710.005 |12:43:13.166 |AppInfo  |StationD:(0001642) CapabilitiesReq.
...
00267834.000 |12:44:13.175 |SdlSig   |StationResponseTimerType   
|wait_capabilities  |StationD(1,100,63,1642)  
|SdlTimerService(1,100,3,1)   |1,100,62,1.1650^*^*  
|[R:H-H:0,N:0,L:0,V:0,Z:0,D:0]
00267834.001 |12:44:13.175 |AppInfo  |StationD:(0001642) registrationError 
sent StationOutputRegisterReject
00267834.002 |12:44:13.175 |AppInfo  |EndPointTransientConnection - An endpoint 
attempted to register but did not complete registration Connecting Port:2000 
Device name:SEP00193EB6 Device IP address:10.103.5.133 Device type:119 
Reason Code:27 Protocol:SCCP Device MAC address:00193EB6 
IPAddressAttributes:3 LastSignalReceived:StationResponseTimerType 
StationState:wait_capabilities App ID:Cisco CallManager Cluster 
ID:StandAloneCluster Node ID:BE6K-CUCM

The reason Brian points to MTU is because the CapabilitiesRes from the phone 
tends to be rather large and if the phone is sending it the server isn't 
getting it.

You can compare with the same type of messages with the phone on 8.3.3 to see 
what's different.

-Ryan

On Jun 3, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Mike King mailto:m...@mpking.com>> 
wrote:

Now I'm more confused.
Did I pull the right Traces?




This is from the Callmanager trace:  (attached is the whole log, device MAC is 
00193EB6)

00268821.002 |12:51:14.196 |AppInfo  |EndPointTransientConnection - An endpoint 
attempted to register but did not complete registration Connecting Port:2000 
Device name:SEP00193EB6 Device IP address:10.103.5.133 Device type:119 
Reason Code:27 Protocol:SCCP Device MAC address:00193EB6 
IPAddressAttributes:3 LastSignalReceived:StationResponseTimerType 
StationState:wait_capabilities App ID:Cisco CallManager Cluster 
ID:StandAloneCluster Node ID:BE6K-CUCM
00268821.003 |12:51:14.197 |AlarmErr |AlarmClass: CallManager, AlarmName: 
EndPointTransientConnection, AlarmSeverity: Error, AlarmMessage: , 
AlarmDescription: An endpoint attempted to register but did not complete 
registration, AlarmParameters:  ConnectingPort:2000, 
DeviceName:SEP00193EB6, IPAddress:10.103.5.133, DeviceType:119, Reason:27, 
Protocol:SCCP, MACAddress:00193EB6, IPAddrAttributes:3, 
LastSignalReceived:StationResponseTimerType, StationState:wait_capabilities, 
AppID:Cisco CallManager, ClusterID:StandAloneCluster, NodeID:BE6K-CUCM,
00268821.004 |12:51:14.197 |AppInfo  |StationD:(0001646) RegisterReject 
text=''.
00268822.000 |12:51:14.198 |AppInfo  
|-->RISCMAccess::DeviceTransientConnection(...)
00268823.000 |12:51:14.198 |AppInfo  |Device Transient deviceName : 
SEP00193EB6, IPAddress : 10.103.5.133, IPv6Address : not shown, 
IPv4Attribute :3, IPv6Attribute :0, Protocol : 1
00268824.000 |12:51:14.198 |AppInfo  |DebugMsg deviceName : SEP00193EB6, 
DeviceType : 119, risClass: 1
00268825.000 |12:51:14.198 |AppInfo  
|<--RISCMAccess::DeviceTransientConnection(...)


On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Ryan Ratliff (rratliff) 
mailto:rratl...@cisco.com>> wrote:
> Any Idea's why the phones are being rejected?

Not from that log that I can tell.  Look at the CCM traces.  Obvious reasons 
are wrong device model in the database, not in the database at all and 
auto-registration is disabled, phone configured with a secure profile requiring 
an LSC and none is present.

-Ryan

On Jun 3, 2014, at 11:08 AM, Mike King 
mailto:m...@mpking.com>> wrote:

We just purchased a BE6K to setup a lab.

I've run through the setup, and have that all sorted, or so I think. (So the 
environment may or may not be the issue)

We have a couple of very phones we were going to recycle.

Right now we have two, a 7970, and a 7971.

The started life phone firmware at 6.0(2).  Utilizing factory defaulting off my 
laptop, I got them to 8.3.3. (I couldn't get them to associated with 6.0(2))

Running 8.3.3, they were able to register, and function.

I pushed the firmware up to 9.3(1SR3.1S)

Now none of the phones are registering.  I've read the release notes, and I 
should be able to goto 9.3.1 from 8.3.3 directly on these phones, with no 
further intermediate releases.

Attached is one of the phone logs.  Both phone's are showing the same behavior.

The phone is just sitting there with the wrong date and time in the corner, and 
every once and awhile wi

Re: [cisco-voip] 69XX Unrecoverable Phantom Hold Issue

[Brian Meade]

Make sure all the phones with the shared line are all registered to the
same CUCM node.  The shared line inter-node communication doesn't scale
great.  10 phones is a lot for a shared line.  Can you possibly move away
from the shared lines to a broadcast hunt group instead?


On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Gabriel Jackson 
wrote:

> Both groups experiencing this issue have a line that is shared on roughly
> 10 phones. In both cases the "Maximum Number of Calls" and "Busy Trigger"
> is set to allow for a large number of calls to be taken and managed from a
> single device.
>
> In my research I did not run across any warnings on this type of setup,
> although I realize that Hunt Groups or similar are, more often than not,
> used as an alternative.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Brian Meade  wrote:
>
>> I've seen this on the 7861s.  How many phones have the shared line?
>>
>> I would get console logs from all phones with the shared line and
>> CallManager traces for the time period you see the next phantom call.  That
>> way the call can be tracked in CallManager to where it came from and why it
>> didn't clear.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Gabriel Jackson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We are currently experiencing an issue on some Cisco 6945 phones which
>>> results in devices showing a shared line as on-hold, yet no call is
>>> actually present. We can't reproduce this issue on demand, but we have
>>> noticed the following is true when it occurs:
>>>
>>> 1. The shared line often has high call volume and is shared by as many
>>> as 10 devices.
>>> 2. The phantom hold will often only affect a single device, resulting in
>>> the phone being out of sync with its peers.
>>> 3. No amount of line-button/soft-button/hard-button presses seems to
>>> clear the line of the phantom. Rebooting the phone will remove the phantom,
>>> though.
>>> 4. Calls can be made from the afflicted line
>>> 5. To date, this has occurred on SIP6945.9-4-1-3
>>> and SCCP6945.9-3-3-2-SR1 firmwares.
>>>
>>> We have found similar bug reports on the Cisco website, but they either
>>> apply to other phone series and/or were corrected by the 9.3.X code train.
>>>
>>> Has anyone else run into anything similar? Thanks!
>>>
>>> --
>>> Gabriel Jackson
>>> Network and Telecom Systems Engineer
>>> University Technology Services
>>> (248) 370-4560
>>>
>>> ___
>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Gabriel Jackson
> Network and Telecom Systems Engineer
> University Technology Services
> (248) 370-4560
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [cisco-voip] 7970 phones won't register in Lab

[Brian Meade]

Sounds like an MTU issue to me based on those logs.  Get captures from the
phone side and CUCM.


On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Mike King  wrote:

> Now I'm more confused.
> Did I pull the right Traces?
>
> 
> 
>
> This is from the Callmanager trace:  (attached is the whole log, device
> MAC is 00193EB6)
>
> 00268821.002 |12:51:14.196 |AppInfo  |EndPointTransientConnection - An
> endpoint attempted to register but did not complete registration Connecting
> Port:2000 Device name:SEP00193EB6 Device IP address:10.103.5.133 Device
> type:119 Reason Code:27 Protocol:SCCP Device MAC address:00193EB6
> IPAddressAttributes:3 LastSignalReceived:StationResponseTimerType
> StationState:wait_capabilities App ID:Cisco CallManager Cluster
> ID:StandAloneCluster Node ID:BE6K-CUCM
> 00268821.003 |12:51:14.197 |AlarmErr |AlarmClass: CallManager, AlarmName:
> EndPointTransientConnection, AlarmSeverity: Error, AlarmMessage: ,
> AlarmDescription: An endpoint attempted to register but did not complete
> registration, AlarmParameters:  ConnectingPort:2000,
> DeviceName:SEP00193EB6, IPAddress:10.103.5.133, DeviceType:119,
> Reason:27, Protocol:SCCP, MACAddress:00193EB6, IPAddrAttributes:3,
> LastSignalReceived:StationResponseTimerType,
> StationState:wait_capabilities, AppID:Cisco CallManager,
> ClusterID:StandAloneCluster, NodeID:BE6K-CUCM,
> 00268821.004 |12:51:14.197 |AppInfo  |StationD:(0001646)
> RegisterReject text=''.
> 00268822.000 |12:51:14.198 |AppInfo
>  |-->RISCMAccess::DeviceTransientConnection(...)
> 00268823.000 |12:51:14.198 |AppInfo  |Device Transient deviceName :
> SEP00193EB6, IPAddress : 10.103.5.133, IPv6Address : not shown,
> IPv4Attribute :3, IPv6Attribute :0, Protocol : 1
> 00268824.000 |12:51:14.198 |AppInfo  |DebugMsg deviceName :
> SEP00193EB6, DeviceType : 119, risClass: 1
> 00268825.000 |12:51:14.198 |AppInfo
>  |<--RISCMAccess::DeviceTransientConnection(...)
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Ryan Ratliff (rratliff) <
> rratl...@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>> > Any Idea's why the phones are being rejected?
>>
>> Not from that log that I can tell.  Look at the CCM traces.  Obvious
>> reasons are wrong device model in the database, not in the database at all
>> and auto-registration is disabled, phone configured with a secure profile
>> requiring an LSC and none is present.
>>
>> -Ryan
>>
>> On Jun 3, 2014, at 11:08 AM, Mike King  wrote:
>>
>> We just purchased a BE6K to setup a lab.
>>
>> I've run through the setup, and have that all sorted, or so I think. (So
>> the environment may or may not be the issue)
>>
>> We have a couple of very phones we were going to recycle.
>>
>> Right now we have two, a 7970, and a 7971.
>>
>> The started life phone firmware at 6.0(2).  Utilizing factory defaulting
>> off my laptop, I got them to 8.3.3. (I couldn't get them to associated with
>> 6.0(2))
>>
>> Running 8.3.3, they were able to register, and function.
>>
>> I pushed the firmware up to 9.3(1SR3.1S)
>>
>> Now none of the phones are registering.  I've read the release notes, and
>> I should be able to goto 9.3.1 from 8.3.3 directly on these phones, with no
>> further intermediate releases.
>>
>> Attached is one of the phone logs.  Both phone's are showing the same
>> behavior.
>>
>> The phone is just sitting there with the wrong date and time in the
>> corner, and every once and awhile will print out "Registration Rejected: "
>>
>> Any Idea's why the phones are being rejected?
>> ___
>> 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
>
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] No Ringing on Some outbound Calls - at&t ipFlex

[Brian Meade]

Definitely at least need the "debug ccsip messages" for one of the calls.
 We'll need to see if AT&T is sending a 180 Ringing or if they're sending a
183 Session Progress w/ SDP to play the ringback inband.  If they're
sending a 183 Session Progress, make sure the SIP Profile on the SIP Trunk
has the Rel1XX Options set to Send Prack if 18X contains SDP.


On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Matthew Loraditch <
mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:

>  We are having a regular but not always issue with a client, where they
> are not hearing the ringing when dialing outbound on calls. These are SCCP
> 6945s to UCM 9.1.2 SIP Trunked to CUBE and then handoff to at&t’s ipFlex
> service.
>
> If anyone has some suggestions to look at before I spend time with TAC it
> would be appreciated!
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
>
>
> Matthew G. Loraditch – CCNP-Voice, CCNA-R&S, CCDA
>
> 1965 Greenspring Drive
> Timonium, MD 21093
>
> direct voice. 443.541.1518
> fax.  410.252.9284
>
> Twitter   |  Facebook
>   | Website
>   |  Email Support
> 
>
> Support Phone. 410.252.8830
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [cisco-voip] 7970 phones won't register in Lab

[Mike King]

Just to clarify.  The date and time is correct if I allow the phone to
upgrade.  It shows the correct time on the display.

If I power cycle the phone, then it goes to the wrong time.

I'm working on pulling the traces that Ryan suggested I look at.


On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Mike King  wrote:

> FYI, i back the phone back to 8.3.3, they work fine.
>
> The phones do have a time zone and date. (This is the correct time zone,
> time, and date for my area)
>
> *Time**12:42:33p**Time Zone**America/New_York**Date* *06/03/14*
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Jason Aarons (AM) <
> jason.aar...@dimensiondata.com> wrote:
>
>> If you http://phoneip/  do you see a date/timezone in the bottom?
>> Trying changing your Device Pool/DTG to something and back?
>>
>>
>>
>> Can you http://serverip:6970/SEP.cnf.xml and view the phone’s
>> config?
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] *On
>> Behalf Of *Mike King
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 03, 2014 11:08 AM
>> *To:* Cisco VoIPoE List
>> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] 7970 phones won't register in Lab
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> We just purchased a BE6K to setup a lab.
>>
>>
>>
>> I've run through the setup, and have that all sorted, or so I think. (So
>> the environment may or may not be the issue)
>>
>>
>>
>> We have a couple of very phones we were going to recycle.
>>
>>
>>
>> Right now we have two, a 7970, and a 7971.
>>
>>
>>
>> The started life phone firmware at 6.0(2).  Utilizing factory defaulting
>> off my laptop, I got them to 8.3.3. (I couldn't get them to associated with
>> 6.0(2))
>>
>>
>>
>> Running 8.3.3, they were able to register, and function.
>>
>>
>>
>> I pushed the firmware up to 9.3(1SR3.1S)
>>
>>
>>
>> Now none of the phones are registering.  I've read the release notes, and
>> I should be able to goto 9.3.1 from 8.3.3 directly on these phones, with no
>> further intermediate releases.
>>
>>
>>
>> Attached is one of the phone logs.  Both phone's are showing the same
>> behavior.
>>
>>
>>
>> The phone is just sitting there with the wrong date and time in the
>> corner, and every once and awhile will print out "Registration Rejected: "
>>
>>
>>
>> Any Idea's why the phones are being rejected?
>>
>>
>>
>> itevomcid
>>
>
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] No Ringing on Some outbound Calls - at&t ipFlex

[Chris Ward (chrward)]

In order for CUCM to tell a phone to play ringback tone, CUCM must receive a 
ringing or progress indicator from the network. CUCM is probably not getting 
the indicator in this case. Some SIP debugs on the GW for a working and not 
working call would probably show that. I suspect a flex issue.

+Chris
TME - MediaSense and Unity Connection

From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of 
Matthew Loraditch
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 12:43 PM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-voip] No Ringing on Some outbound Calls - at&t ipFlex

We are having a regular but not always issue with a client, where they are not 
hearing the ringing when dialing outbound on calls. These are SCCP 6945s to UCM 
9.1.2 SIP Trunked to CUBE and then handoff to at&t's ipFlex service.
If anyone has some suggestions to look at before I spend time with TAC it would 
be appreciated!
Thanks!


Matthew G. Loraditch - CCNP-Voice, CCNA-R&S, CCDA
1965 Greenspring Drive
Timonium, MD 21093

direct voice. 443.541.1518
fax.  410.252.9284

Twitter  |  
Facebook  | 
Website  |  Email 
Support
Support Phone. 410.252.8830


___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] 7970 phones won't register in Lab

[Mike King]

FYI, i back the phone back to 8.3.3, they work fine.

The phones do have a time zone and date. (This is the correct time zone,
time, and date for my area)

*Time**12:42:33p**Time Zone**America/New_York**Date**06/03/14*


On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Jason Aarons (AM) <
jason.aar...@dimensiondata.com> wrote:

> If you http://phoneip/  do you see a date/timezone in the bottom?  Trying
> changing your Device Pool/DTG to something and back?
>
>
>
> Can you http://serverip:6970/SEP.cnf.xml and view the phone’s config?
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] *On Behalf
> Of *Mike King
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 03, 2014 11:08 AM
> *To:* Cisco VoIPoE List
> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] 7970 phones won't register in Lab
>
>
>
>
>
> We just purchased a BE6K to setup a lab.
>
>
>
> I've run through the setup, and have that all sorted, or so I think. (So
> the environment may or may not be the issue)
>
>
>
> We have a couple of very phones we were going to recycle.
>
>
>
> Right now we have two, a 7970, and a 7971.
>
>
>
> The started life phone firmware at 6.0(2).  Utilizing factory defaulting
> off my laptop, I got them to 8.3.3. (I couldn't get them to associated with
> 6.0(2))
>
>
>
> Running 8.3.3, they were able to register, and function.
>
>
>
> I pushed the firmware up to 9.3(1SR3.1S)
>
>
>
> Now none of the phones are registering.  I've read the release notes, and
> I should be able to goto 9.3.1 from 8.3.3 directly on these phones, with no
> further intermediate releases.
>
>
>
> Attached is one of the phone logs.  Both phone's are showing the same
> behavior.
>
>
>
> The phone is just sitting there with the wrong date and time in the
> corner, and every once and awhile will print out "Registration Rejected: "
>
>
>
> Any Idea's why the phones are being rejected?
>
>
>
> itevomcid
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

[cisco-voip] No Ringing on Some outbound Calls - at&t ipFlex

[Matthew Loraditch]

We are having a regular but not always issue with a client, where they are not 
hearing the ringing when dialing outbound on calls. These are SCCP 6945s to UCM 
9.1.2 SIP Trunked to CUBE and then handoff to at&t's ipFlex service.
If anyone has some suggestions to look at before I spend time with TAC it would 
be appreciated!
Thanks!


Matthew G. Loraditch - CCNP-Voice, CCNA-R&S, CCDA
1965 Greenspring Drive
Timonium, MD 21093

direct voice. 443.541.1518
fax.  410.252.9284

Twitter  |  
Facebook  | 
Website  |  Email 
Support
Support Phone. 410.252.8830


___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] Outsourced phone system upgrade cost

[Heim, Dennis]

Could probably figure a month’s worth of effort or more from an hours 
perspective. Figure 150-200/hr. Obviously there are tons of variables and 
things that can move the price up and down.

Dennis Heim | Collaboration Solutions Architect
World Wide Technology, Inc. | +1 314-212-1814
[cid:image001.png@01CF7F19.3BD6DA40]
[cid:image002.png@01CF7F19.3BD6DA40][cid:image003.png@01CF7F19.3BD6DA40][cid:image004.png@01CF7F19.3BD6DA40]


From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Brian 
Meade
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 8:47 AM
To: Andrew Grech
Cc: Cisco VoIP Group
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Outsourced phone system upgrade cost

Andrew,

There's way too many variables for anyone to be able to give you even a 
ballpark quote.

Brian

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Andrew Grech 
mailto:agrec...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I have just finished upgrading our Cisco phone system from version 8.6 physical 
to 10.x

Components:
2 new UCS servers connected via WWAN
Clustered Call Center (24 hour minimal outage)
Presence (to be clustered)
Cluster Unity (now clustered)
Socialminer
Prime Deployment
Prime-Provisoning
Gateways IOS upgrades
TMS (newest)
Expressway

All of this was done in house and I'm just wondering what this would cost for a 
business to outsource as this was quite a lengthy process. PS I'm from 
Australia, USD is also fine.

I still have things to do like setup SANS, begin implementing new features, 
finesse...


___
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

Re: [cisco-voip] 7970 phones won't register in Lab

[Ryan Ratliff (rratliff)]

> Any Idea's why the phones are being rejected?

Not from that log that I can tell.  Look at the CCM traces.  Obvious reasons 
are wrong device model in the database, not in the database at all and 
auto-registration is disabled, phone configured with a secure profile requiring 
an LSC and none is present.

-Ryan

On Jun 3, 2014, at 11:08 AM, Mike King  wrote:

We just purchased a BE6K to setup a lab.

I've run through the setup, and have that all sorted, or so I think. (So the 
environment may or may not be the issue)

We have a couple of very phones we were going to recycle.

Right now we have two, a 7970, and a 7971.

The started life phone firmware at 6.0(2).  Utilizing factory defaulting off my 
laptop, I got them to 8.3.3. (I couldn't get them to associated with 6.0(2))

Running 8.3.3, they were able to register, and function.

I pushed the firmware up to 9.3(1SR3.1S)

Now none of the phones are registering.  I've read the release notes, and I 
should be able to goto 9.3.1 from 8.3.3 directly on these phones, with no 
further intermediate releases.

Attached is one of the phone logs.  Both phone's are showing the same behavior.

The phone is just sitting there with the wrong date and time in the corner, and 
every once and awhile will print out "Registration Rejected: " 

Any Idea's why the phones are being rejected?
___
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

Re: [cisco-voip] 69XX Unrecoverable Phantom Hold Issue

[Gabriel Jackson]

Both groups experiencing this issue have a line that is shared on roughly
10 phones. In both cases the "Maximum Number of Calls" and "Busy Trigger"
is set to allow for a large number of calls to be taken and managed from a
single device.

In my research I did not run across any warnings on this type of setup,
although I realize that Hunt Groups or similar are, more often than not,
used as an alternative.


On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Brian Meade  wrote:

> I've seen this on the 7861s.  How many phones have the shared line?
>
> I would get console logs from all phones with the shared line and
> CallManager traces for the time period you see the next phantom call.  That
> way the call can be tracked in CallManager to where it came from and why it
> didn't clear.
>
> Brian
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Gabriel Jackson 
> wrote:
>
>> We are currently experiencing an issue on some Cisco 6945 phones which
>> results in devices showing a shared line as on-hold, yet no call is
>> actually present. We can't reproduce this issue on demand, but we have
>> noticed the following is true when it occurs:
>>
>> 1. The shared line often has high call volume and is shared by as many as
>> 10 devices.
>> 2. The phantom hold will often only affect a single device, resulting in
>> the phone being out of sync with its peers.
>> 3. No amount of line-button/soft-button/hard-button presses seems to
>> clear the line of the phantom. Rebooting the phone will remove the phantom,
>> though.
>> 4. Calls can be made from the afflicted line
>> 5. To date, this has occurred on SIP6945.9-4-1-3 and SCCP6945.9-3-3-2-SR1
>> firmwares.
>>
>> We have found similar bug reports on the Cisco website, but they either
>> apply to other phone series and/or were corrected by the 9.3.X code train.
>>
>> Has anyone else run into anything similar? Thanks!
>>
>> --
>> Gabriel Jackson
>> Network and Telecom Systems Engineer
>> University Technology Services
>> (248) 370-4560
>>
>> ___
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>
>>
>


-- 
Gabriel Jackson
Network and Telecom Systems Engineer
University Technology Services
(248) 370-4560
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

[cisco-voip] 7970 phones won't register in Lab

[Mike King]

We just purchased a BE6K to setup a lab.

I've run through the setup, and have that all sorted, or so I think. (So
the environment may or may not be the issue)

We have a couple of very phones we were going to recycle.

Right now we have two, a 7970, and a 7971.

The started life phone firmware at 6.0(2).  Utilizing factory defaulting
off my laptop, I got them to 8.3.3. (I couldn't get them to associated with
6.0(2))

Running 8.3.3, they were able to register, and function.

I pushed the firmware up to 9.3(1SR3.1S)

Now none of the phones are registering.  I've read the release notes, and I
should be able to goto 9.3.1 from 8.3.3 directly on these phones, with no
further intermediate releases.

Attached is one of the phone logs.  Both phone's are showing the same
behavior.

The phone is just sitting there with the wrong date and time in the corner,
and every once and awhile will print out "Registration Rejected: "

Any Idea's why the phones are being rejected?


log199.log
Description: Binary data
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] 69XX Unrecoverable Phantom Hold Issue

[Brian Meade]

I've seen this on the 7861s.  How many phones have the shared line?

I would get console logs from all phones with the shared line and
CallManager traces for the time period you see the next phantom call.  That
way the call can be tracked in CallManager to where it came from and why it
didn't clear.

Brian


On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Gabriel Jackson 
wrote:

> We are currently experiencing an issue on some Cisco 6945 phones which
> results in devices showing a shared line as on-hold, yet no call is
> actually present. We can't reproduce this issue on demand, but we have
> noticed the following is true when it occurs:
>
> 1. The shared line often has high call volume and is shared by as many as
> 10 devices.
> 2. The phantom hold will often only affect a single device, resulting in
> the phone being out of sync with its peers.
> 3. No amount of line-button/soft-button/hard-button presses seems to clear
> the line of the phantom. Rebooting the phone will remove the phantom,
> though.
> 4. Calls can be made from the afflicted line
> 5. To date, this has occurred on SIP6945.9-4-1-3 and SCCP6945.9-3-3-2-SR1
> firmwares.
>
> We have found similar bug reports on the Cisco website, but they either
> apply to other phone series and/or were corrected by the 9.3.X code train.
>
> Has anyone else run into anything similar? Thanks!
>
> --
> Gabriel Jackson
> Network and Telecom Systems Engineer
> University Technology Services
> (248) 370-4560
>
> ___
> 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

[cisco-voip] 69XX Unrecoverable Phantom Hold Issue

[Gabriel Jackson]

We are currently experiencing an issue on some Cisco 6945 phones which
results in devices showing a shared line as on-hold, yet no call is
actually present. We can't reproduce this issue on demand, but we have
noticed the following is true when it occurs:

1. The shared line often has high call volume and is shared by as many as
10 devices.
2. The phantom hold will often only affect a single device, resulting in
the phone being out of sync with its peers.
3. No amount of line-button/soft-button/hard-button presses seems to clear
the line of the phantom. Rebooting the phone will remove the phantom,
though.
4. Calls can be made from the afflicted line
5. To date, this has occurred on SIP6945.9-4-1-3 and SCCP6945.9-3-3-2-SR1
firmwares.

We have found similar bug reports on the Cisco website, but they either
apply to other phone series and/or were corrected by the 9.3.X code train.

Has anyone else run into anything similar? Thanks!

-- 
Gabriel Jackson
Network and Telecom Systems Engineer
University Technology Services
(248) 370-4560
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] Outsourced phone system upgrade cost

[Brian Meade]

Andrew,

There's way too many variables for anyone to be able to give you even a
ballpark quote.

Brian


On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Andrew Grech  wrote:

> I have just finished upgrading our Cisco phone system from version 8.6
> physical to 10.x
>
> Components:
> 2 new UCS servers connected via WWAN
> Clustered Call Center (24 hour minimal outage)
> Presence (to be clustered)
> Cluster Unity (now clustered)
> Socialminer
> Prime Deployment
> Prime-Provisoning
> Gateways IOS upgrades
> TMS (newest)
> Expressway
>
> All of this was done in house and I'm just wondering what this would cost
> for a business to outsource as this was quite a lengthy process. PS I'm
> from Australia, USD is also fine.
>
> I still have things to do like setup SANS, begin implementing new
> features, finesse...
>
>
> ___
> 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

[cisco-voip] Outsourced phone system upgrade cost

[Andrew Grech]

I have just finished upgrading our Cisco phone system from version 8.6
physical to 10.x

Components:
2 new UCS servers connected via WWAN
Clustered Call Center (24 hour minimal outage)
Presence (to be clustered)
Cluster Unity (now clustered)
Socialminer
Prime Deployment
Prime-Provisoning
Gateways IOS upgrades
TMS (newest)
Expressway

All of this was done in house and I'm just wondering what this would cost
for a business to outsource as this was quite a lengthy process. PS I'm
from Australia, USD is also fine.

I still have things to do like setup SANS, begin implementing new features,
finesse...
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

[cisco-voip] Active Call Duration - Cisco ATA 186/187

[Nenad Lazarevic]

Dear all,

I need SNMP oid for monitoring active call duration at Cisco ATA 186/187
module, because often I have calls which duration is longer than 3 hours,
fax do not disconnect call.

Please help
Best regards,
Nenad
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip