Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM SIP Early Attended Transfers

[Anthony Holloway]

Thanks guys.  Nick, that's kind of the conclusion I was leaning towards,
and now I have confirmation bias.  ;)  I'll take a look at that flex reach
doc as soon as I can.  Also, Brian, I do have an Annunciator in the MRGL of
the SIP trunk.  Thanks again.

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Nick Barnett 
wrote:

> My experience is that it isn't going to give ringback to PSTN phone A
> (step 7) when going back through a CUBE without forcing MTP.
>
> This was called out as a caveat in the SIP integration guide for AT flex
> reach via CUBE.
>
> https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/solutions/collateral/enterprise/interoperability-portal/flexible-reach.pdf
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Anthony Holloway <
> avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> Does anyone have any experience with CUCM, SIP Phones, SIP Trunks, and
>> early attended transfers (AKA hitting the transfer button a second time
>> quickly)?  I'm not hearing ringback on the transferee phone.
>>
>> Components in play:
>>
>> CUCM 10.5(2)
>> CUBE 15.4 (SIP-SIP)
>>
>> Scenario:
>>
>>1. PSTN Phone A calls into enterprise
>>2. IP Phone B answers
>>3. IP Phone B Presses Transfer Key
>>4. PSTN Phone A hears MOH
>>5. IP Phone B Dials Transfer Target and hears ringback
>>6. IP Phone B Presses Transfer Key Again
>>7. PSTN Phone A hears silence until call connects then two way audio
>>
>> I found this reference in the CUCM System Guide on SIP:
>>
>>
>> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/sip_msg/line_std/11_0_1/CUCM_BK_SB03D18E_00_sip-line-messaging-standard-1101/CUCM_BK_SB03D18E_00_sip-line-messaging-standard-1101_chapter_00.html#CUCM_CN_E798E831_00
>>
>> Specifically these two seemingly contradictory sentences:
>>
>> "The transferee receives a ringback while the target phone is alerting."
>>
>> "The transferee will not receive a ringback although the target is
>> alerting."
>>
>> Seems like it's just not going to work.  What do you think?
>>
>> ___
>> 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] IM, Jabber, Presence Redundancy Groups, Assigned Presence Server

[Anthony Holloway]

I hear you Daniel, and I appreciate the remarks, however, that will not be
possible in this particular instance.

So, it sounds like I might have turned over every rock already.  The
decision at this point might be the cost benefit of micro managing the load
balances versus the optimal routing geographically.

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:50 PM,  wrote:

> Hi Anthony,
>
> I dare say that the CUPS BU did not give user assignment much thought with
> regards to geographical regions.
>
> What I would do in this instance (and may or may not be possible for you
> to re-design) is to have separate clusters for your East Coast and West
> Coast. This would be achieved by changing the LDAP to point 1 cluster to a
> more specific geographical OU.
>
> For CUCM you can easily set up ILS/GDPR to exchange your extensions
> between cluster and EMCC (Extension Mobility Cross Cluster) is fairy
> trivial. This setup would also support centralised TFTP for phone
> registration and centralised Jabber login. Now when it comes to CUPS, you
> will of course be using Inter-cluster Peering. The downside to this for
> both CUCM and CUPS, there is no redundancy between East Coast and West
> Coast (between your DC's) but this can still be achieved with subscribers
> in each DC.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 26 Apr 2016, at 04:51, Anthony Holloway <
> avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> *My specific environment is*
> CUCM 11.0(1a)SU1
> IM 11.0(1)
> Jabber for Windows 11.5(2)
>
> Clustering over the WAN with local failover
> 2x CUCM nodes and 2x IM nodes in DC1 (east coast)
> 2x CUCM nodes and 2x IM nodes in DC2 (west coast)
>
> *The Challenge*
> I need to *easily* assign users to the proper Presence Redundancy Group,
> based on geographic region of the user.
>
> *My Thoughts*
> First off, I needed to change the *CUCM > Enterprise Parameters > User
> Assignment Mode for Presence Server* setting to *None*, so that if
> someone clicks the *CUCM > User Management > Assign Presence Users >
> Rebalance Users* button, it doesn't destroy the geographic assignments
> I'll have worked so hard to maintain.
>
> Second, I know that the *CUCM > User Management > Assign Presence Users 
> *setting
> takes precedence over the *CUCM > User Management > User Settings
> > Service Profile > IM and Presence Profile*.  Otherwise, I'd just assign
> users to *Service Profiles* by way of *Feature Group Templates* assigned
> to different *LDAP Directory* sync agreements.
>
> Third, *BAT > Users > Update Users > Query* has very little fields to
> filter on.  How hard would it be to add a few more fields in here Cisco?
> There's just no way this is useful.  *BAT > Users > Update Users > Custom
> File* has promise, but because of its mandatory User Template usage,
> it'll need some careful testing with the Ignore Fields option.  I'm not
> excited about that method, unless one of you calms my fears.
>
> What I would like to ask the group is, how are you doing this, or how
> would you suggest doing this?  I.e., Your process to assign users, both
> existing in the system today, and newly synced from LDAP, to their
> geographic IM nodes and therefore Presence Redundancy Groups?  I'm not
> quite looking for a SQL query method, or an AXL method, something a
> operations person could manage through the GUI.
>
> Thanks.
>
> ___
> 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] IM, Jabber, Presence Redundancy Groups, Assigned Presence Server

[Daniel Ohnesorge via cisco-voip]

Hi Anthony,

I dare say that the CUPS BU did not give user assignment much thought with 
regards to geographical regions. 

What I would do in this instance (and may or may not be possible for you to 
re-design) is to have separate clusters for your East Coast and West Coast. 
This would be achieved by changing the LDAP to point 1 cluster to a more 
specific geographical OU. 

For CUCM you can easily set up ILS/GDPR to exchange your extensions between 
cluster and EMCC (Extension Mobility Cross Cluster) is fairy trivial. This 
setup would also support centralised TFTP for phone registration and 
centralised Jabber login. Now when it comes to CUPS, you will of course be 
using Inter-cluster Peering. The downside to this for both CUCM and CUPS, there 
is no redundancy between East Coast and West Coast (between your DC's) but this 
can still be achieved with subscribers in each DC.

Sent from my iPhone

> On 26 Apr 2016, at 04:51, Anthony Holloway  
> wrote:
> 
> All,
> 
> My specific environment is
> CUCM 11.0(1a)SU1
> IM 11.0(1)
> Jabber for Windows 11.5(2)
> 
> Clustering over the WAN with local failover
> 2x CUCM nodes and 2x IM nodes in DC1 (east coast)
> 2x CUCM nodes and 2x IM nodes in DC2 (west coast)
> 
> The Challenge
> I need to *easily* assign users to the proper Presence Redundancy Group, 
> based on geographic region of the user.
> 
> My Thoughts
> First off, I needed to change the CUCM > Enterprise Parameters > User 
> Assignment Mode for Presence Server setting to None, so that if someone 
> clicks the CUCM > User Management > Assign Presence Users > Rebalance Users 
> button, it doesn't destroy the geographic assignments I'll have worked so 
> hard to maintain.
> 
> Second, I know that the CUCM > User Management > Assign Presence Users 
> setting takes precedence over the CUCM > User Management > User Settings > 
> Service Profile > IM and Presence Profile.  Otherwise, I'd just assign users 
> to Service Profiles by way of Feature Group Templates assigned to different 
> LDAP Directory sync agreements.
> 
> Third, BAT > Users > Update Users > Query has very little fields to filter 
> on.  How hard would it be to add a few more fields in here Cisco?  There's 
> just no way this is useful.  BAT > Users > Update Users > Custom File has 
> promise, but because of its mandatory User Template usage, it'll need some 
> careful testing with the Ignore Fields option.  I'm not excited about that 
> method, unless one of you calms my fears.
> 
> What I would like to ask the group is, how are you doing this, or how would 
> you suggest doing this?  I.e., Your process to assign users, both existing in 
> the system today, and newly synced from LDAP, to their geographic IM nodes 
> and therefore Presence Redundancy Groups?  I'm not quite looking for a SQL 
> query method, or an AXL method, something a operations person could manage 
> through the GUI.
> 
> Thanks.
> ___
> 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] CUCM SIP Early Attended Transfers

[Nick Barnett]

My experience is that it isn't going to give ringback to PSTN phone A (step
7) when going back through a CUBE without forcing MTP.

This was called out as a caveat in the SIP integration guide for AT flex
reach via CUBE.
https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/solutions/collateral/enterprise/interoperability-portal/flexible-reach.pdf



On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Anthony Holloway <
avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:

> All,
>
> Does anyone have any experience with CUCM, SIP Phones, SIP Trunks, and
> early attended transfers (AKA hitting the transfer button a second time
> quickly)?  I'm not hearing ringback on the transferee phone.
>
> Components in play:
>
> CUCM 10.5(2)
> CUBE 15.4 (SIP-SIP)
>
> Scenario:
>
>1. PSTN Phone A calls into enterprise
>2. IP Phone B answers
>3. IP Phone B Presses Transfer Key
>4. PSTN Phone A hears MOH
>5. IP Phone B Dials Transfer Target and hears ringback
>6. IP Phone B Presses Transfer Key Again
>7. PSTN Phone A hears silence until call connects then two way audio
>
> I found this reference in the CUCM System Guide on SIP:
>
>
> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/sip_msg/line_std/11_0_1/CUCM_BK_SB03D18E_00_sip-line-messaging-standard-1101/CUCM_BK_SB03D18E_00_sip-line-messaging-standard-1101_chapter_00.html#CUCM_CN_E798E831_00
>
> Specifically these two seemingly contradictory sentences:
>
> "The transferee receives a ringback while the target phone is alerting."
>
> "The transferee will not receive a ringback although the target is
> alerting."
>
> Seems like it's just not going to work.  What do you think?
>
> ___
> 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] CUCM Native Call Queuing and MMOH from Router

[Anthony Holloway]

All,

After reading the Release Notes and then validating with Perfmon counters,
I now know that the initial announcement for Native Call Queuing is sourced
from an Annunciator as unicast, while the following MOH Audio Source and
Periodic Announcement is sourced from an MOH Server.  If the MOH Audio
Source, MOH Server, and MRG are configured correctly, it will use MMOH
successfully.

Relevant Release Notes Section:
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/rel_notes/9_1_1/CUCM_BK_R6F8DBD4_00_release-notes-for-cucm-91/CUCM_BK_R6F8DBD4_00_release-notes-for-cucm-91_chapter_011.html#CUCM_RF_NE20F57D_00

However, I'm wondering if anyone has any experience with blocking the MMOH
stream from the MOH server, and then serving up a different audio file from
a router.  This is the same tried and true solution we've all been using
for many years to avoid MOH over the WAN.  The difference being the Native
Call Queuing component versus straight up Hold.

What have you noticed or learned from doing this?  Does it just work
seamlessly?  Are there any limitations?

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

Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM SIP Early Attended Transfers

[Brian Meade]

CUCM pulls in an annunciator for ringback during blind transfers.  Make
sure the SIP Trunk MRGL has access to an annunciator.

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Anthony Holloway <
avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:

> All,
>
> Does anyone have any experience with CUCM, SIP Phones, SIP Trunks, and
> early attended transfers (AKA hitting the transfer button a second time
> quickly)?  I'm not hearing ringback on the transferee phone.
>
> Components in play:
>
> CUCM 10.5(2)
> CUBE 15.4 (SIP-SIP)
>
> Scenario:
>
>1. PSTN Phone A calls into enterprise
>2. IP Phone B answers
>3. IP Phone B Presses Transfer Key
>4. PSTN Phone A hears MOH
>5. IP Phone B Dials Transfer Target and hears ringback
>6. IP Phone B Presses Transfer Key Again
>7. PSTN Phone A hears silence until call connects then two way audio
>
> I found this reference in the CUCM System Guide on SIP:
>
>
> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/sip_msg/line_std/11_0_1/CUCM_BK_SB03D18E_00_sip-line-messaging-standard-1101/CUCM_BK_SB03D18E_00_sip-line-messaging-standard-1101_chapter_00.html#CUCM_CN_E798E831_00
>
> Specifically these two seemingly contradictory sentences:
>
> "The transferee receives a ringback while the target phone is alerting."
>
> "The transferee will not receive a ringback although the target is
> alerting."
>
> Seems like it's just not going to work.  What do you think?
>
> ___
> 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] CUCM SIP Early Attended Transfers

[Anthony Holloway]

All,

Does anyone have any experience with CUCM, SIP Phones, SIP Trunks, and
early attended transfers (AKA hitting the transfer button a second time
quickly)?  I'm not hearing ringback on the transferee phone.

Components in play:

CUCM 10.5(2)
CUBE 15.4 (SIP-SIP)

Scenario:

   1. PSTN Phone A calls into enterprise
   2. IP Phone B answers
   3. IP Phone B Presses Transfer Key
   4. PSTN Phone A hears MOH
   5. IP Phone B Dials Transfer Target and hears ringback
   6. IP Phone B Presses Transfer Key Again
   7. PSTN Phone A hears silence until call connects then two way audio

I found this reference in the CUCM System Guide on SIP:

http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/sip_msg/line_std/11_0_1/CUCM_BK_SB03D18E_00_sip-line-messaging-standard-1101/CUCM_BK_SB03D18E_00_sip-line-messaging-standard-1101_chapter_00.html#CUCM_CN_E798E831_00

Specifically these two seemingly contradictory sentences:

"The transferee receives a ringback while the target phone is alerting."

"The transferee will not receive a ringback although the target is
alerting."

Seems like it's just not going to work.  What do you think?
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

[cisco-voip] IM, Jabber, Presence Redundancy Groups, Assigned Presence Server

[Anthony Holloway]

All,

*My specific environment is*
CUCM 11.0(1a)SU1
IM 11.0(1)
Jabber for Windows 11.5(2)

Clustering over the WAN with local failover
2x CUCM nodes and 2x IM nodes in DC1 (east coast)
2x CUCM nodes and 2x IM nodes in DC2 (west coast)

*The Challenge*
I need to *easily* assign users to the proper Presence Redundancy Group,
based on geographic region of the user.

*My Thoughts*
First off, I needed to change the *CUCM > Enterprise Parameters > User
Assignment Mode for Presence Server* setting to *None*, so that if someone
clicks the *CUCM > User Management > Assign Presence Users > Rebalance
Users* button, it doesn't destroy the geographic assignments I'll have
worked so hard to maintain.

Second, I know that the *CUCM > User Management > Assign Presence
Users *setting
takes precedence over the *CUCM > User Management > User Settings
> Service Profile > IM and Presence Profile*.  Otherwise, I'd just assign
users to *Service Profiles* by way of *Feature Group Templates* assigned to
different *LDAP Directory* sync agreements.

Third, *BAT > Users > Update Users > Query* has very little fields to
filter on.  How hard would it be to add a few more fields in here Cisco?
There's just no way this is useful.  *BAT > Users > Update Users > Custom
File* has promise, but because of its mandatory User Template usage, it'll
need some careful testing with the Ignore Fields option.  I'm not excited
about that method, unless one of you calms my fears.

What I would like to ask the group is, how are you doing this, or how would
you suggest doing this?  I.e., Your process to assign users, both existing
in the system today, and newly synced from LDAP, to their geographic IM
nodes and therefore Presence Redundancy Groups?  I'm not quite looking for
a SQL query method, or an AXL method, something a operations person could
manage through the GUI.

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