[cisco-voip] IP Phones + MGCP FXS + Shared Lines

[Anthony Holloway]

Does anyone have current information on whether or not MGCP FXS ports can
be on shared lines with Cisco IP Phones?

No anecdotal or empirical evidence please.  I'm looking for documented
facts, preferably the kind that doesn't require re-reading it like 10 times
to come up with your own interpretation.

Check out what the two Cisco Employees are saying in this thread from 2010
(Spoiler - It's not supported)

https://supportforums.cisco.com/t5/ip-telephony/shared-line-between-ip-phones-and-fxs-port-with-sccp-setup/td-p/1045431

Are you a Cisco employee who likes to stick your neck out for internet
strangers, and also believe this to be unsupported?  Please contact me.  Or
not.  I'm not crying.
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] UC server performance and UCCX agent in reserve

[Anthony Holloway]

Out of curiosity, how long had Tomcat been running before you restarted it?

This isn't at you Terry, but in general.

Companies will spend a lot of money getting systems in place, but then
completely forget that technology has a life cycle; leading towards a
better experience.  And no, I don't just mean upgrade to the latest shiny
version.  I mean, efficiency, features, user experience, stability, scale,
shorter MTTR.

Without being able to quantify it, I have seen more than a comfortable
amount of environments *without*: a pre-production environment, proper
analytics, proper change control, a good monitoring solution (emails from
RTMT don't count), resource usage monitoring, a good backup strategy,
vmtools up to date, and anything other than just MACD work being performed.

It's like there's this sole effort on "projects," and the old saying: "if
isn't broke, don't fix it," wins again. We lose the chance to truly
understand our systems, and therefore the chance to optimize them.

/rant

*Disclaimer: Today was a long cutover, and I'm tired*

PS Ryan amazes me too.

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:32 PM Terry Oakley 
wrote:

> Thank you again Ryan.   I think I found the issue.   One of the tests
> showed a problem with AXL services.  Restarted Tomcat and we appear to be
> much better.
>
>
>
> --
> *From:* Terry Oakley
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 14, 2017 5:29:31 PM
> *To:* Ryan Huff
>
> *Cc:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] UC server performance and UCCX agent in
> reserve
>
> Thanks Ryan.. .I will have a look tonight..
>
>
> PS i don't know how you find all the time to respond to all of us but I am
> very thankful that you do.  😊
> --
> *From:* Ryan Huff 
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 14, 2017 5:26:53 PM
> *To:* Terry Oakley
> *Cc:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] UC server performance and UCCX agent in
> reserve
>
> Just based on that description alone, I’d say it might be possible you
> have some LAN congestion?
> Everything you’re talking about here is riding http/https.
>
> - Any recent QoS policy changes?
>
> - Is other non-UC web traffic slower than normal from those PCs?
>
> - Run *utils diagnose test* on the CLI of each server and see if you find
> any goodies ...
>
> -Ryan
>
> On Dec 14, 2017, at 7:18 PM, Terry Oakley  wrote:
>
> For the past week and a bit I have noticed a decline in UC (Call Manager)
> response time when editing/adding a device.   The message 'loading' stays
> on for 5 to 10 seconds or even longer.   Page refresh is also really slow.
>   In looking at RTMT the CPU/Memory/disk space are all around 50% or less
> with no apparent spikes.   Any suggestions on where this lag could be?
>
>
> On another but may be related , a couple of our agents (but not all) both
> have had their phones restart while in use, and today both had their agent
> go into Reserved state for a couple of minutes before finally connecting
> and allowing them service. Again any suggestions on where one would
> look would be appreciated.
>
>
> UC 11.5 SU3
>
> UCCX 11.5
>
> IMP 11.5 SU3
>
> O365
>
> Unity Connection 11.5
>
>
> Terry
>
>
> ___
> 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] Contact Center Management Tool

[Anthony Holloway]

I wonder if this will do most, if not all, of that.

http://www.contactview.com/

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:37 AM Brian Meade  wrote:

> Hey everyone,
>
> I've got a customer looking for an ideally web-based product to front-end
> a lot of their call center applications allowing them to easily control
> daily schedules, holidays including alternate schedules per holiday, force
> open/close, and prompt changing/recording.
>
> Currently they use a product called Netera Script Automation Manager (SAM)
> that is no longer supported.
>
> I'm sure I could make a SQL DB for all this and a web front-end but was
> hoping for more of a commercially available option so they have a support
> model going forward.
>
> We're also looking at replacing with an IVR but some of the stuff they
> want to do on the fly is difficult on an IVR such as changing the hours for
> next Friday.
>
> Anyone seen any options here or have some ideas of good ways to handle
> these tasks for non-technical users?
>
> Thanks,
> Brian Meade
> ___
> 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] UC server performance and UCCX agent in reserve

[Charles Goldsmith]

We are seeing the same slowness with 11.5.1 SU3 on CUCM admin pages.
Restarting Tomcat resolves the issue.  I have not dug deeper, anyone seen a
bug ID about it?

Restarting Tomcat isn't an option for us routinely, due to EM users.

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Terry Oakley 
wrote:

> For the past week and a bit I have noticed a decline in UC (Call Manager)
> response time when editing/adding a device.   The message 'loading' stays
> on for 5 to 10 seconds or even longer.   Page refresh is also really slow.
>   In looking at RTMT the CPU/Memory/disk space are all around 50% or less
> with no apparent spikes.   Any suggestions on where this lag could be?
>
>
> On another but may be related , a couple of our agents (but not all) both
> have had their phones restart while in use, and today both had their agent
> go into Reserved state for a couple of minutes before finally connecting
> and allowing them service. Again any suggestions on where one would
> look would be appreciated.
>
>
> UC 11.5 SU3
>
> UCCX 11.5
>
> IMP 11.5 SU3
>
> O365
>
> Unity Connection 11.5
>
>
> Terry
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] 8800 Series firmware upgrade 12.0(1) text color

[Haas, Neal]

We are creating lighter backgrounds to resolve the not active line color. Also 
I just noticed no Text on the top of the screen!

Thank You,

Neal Haas
NSE, Communications
Please report Troubles to the Help Desk. 559-600-5900
Telephone (559) 600-5890

From: Bill Talley [mailto:btal...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 7:51 AM
To: JASON BURWELL 
Cc: Haas, Neal ; NateCCIE ; 
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] 8800 Series firmware upgrade 12.0(1) text color

Thanks for your feedback Jason.  I'll try a more solid background and will 
report back to the group with results.

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:47 AM, JASON BURWELL 
mailto:jason.burw...@foundersfcu.com>> wrote:
Yes, dark wallpapers bring out plain white text for us. It’s been like this 
since upgrading off of I think FW11.5x or whatever version created an entire 
white block for each label which pretty much killed the wallpapers. We are 
using wallpaper that is mostly solid but a watermark of the company logo does 
appear under the text and it looks fine. None of our wallpapers use gradients 
though. Maybe that’s the issue, it having a problem interpreting and deciding 
what color text to use? This is on 8851 and 8865.

Jason

From: Bill Talley [mailto:btal...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 10:22 AM

To: JASON BURWELL 
mailto:jason.burw...@foundersfcu.com>>
Cc: Haas, Neal mailto:nh...@co.fresno.ca.us>>; NateCCIE 
mailto:natec...@gmail.com>>; 
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] 8800 Series firmware upgrade 12.0(1) text color

So your dark backgrounds on 12.0.1SR1 have white text?   Are they solid 
backgrounds or gradients?  We had white text over the same background on 
firmware 11.7.1.17 but after upgrading to 12.0.1SR1 the text changed to gray.   
Downgrading to 11.7.1.17 reverted text to white.  Using solely 8845s and CCM 
11.5.1.SU3 on our end.
Sent from a mobile device with very tiny touchscreen input keys. Please excude 
my typtos.

On Dec 14, 2017, at 9:06 AM, JASON BURWELL 
mailto:jason.burw...@foundersfcu.com>> wrote:
Not sure, I saw your picture and I have not had that issue anywhere on the 12x 
train. We have light and dark wallpapers. The Text for Speed Dials/Features 
changes automatically between Black and White color text depending on the 
wallpaper chosen so the text always clear and visible. I do recall an issue 
with text being seen back in 11.5 or 11.7 somewhere. I’ve been through a lot of 
ES releases prior to 12 so hard to remember.


Jason

From: Bill Talley [mailto:btal...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 9:07 AM
To: JASON BURWELL 
mailto:jason.burw...@foundersfcu.com>>
Cc: Haas, Neal mailto:nh...@co.fresno.ca.us>>; NateCCIE 
mailto:natec...@gmail.com>>; 
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] 8800 Series firmware upgrade 12.0(1) text color

Issue with display text still exists on SR1.  That’s what we were using.
Sent from a mobile device with very tiny touchscreen input keys. Please excude 
my typtos.

On Dec 14, 2017, at 7:24 AM, JASON BURWELL 
mailto:jason.burw...@foundersfcu.com>> wrote:
I recommend loading the latest available firmware for the 8800 phones. Right 
now 12-0-1SR1-1 is available. In some cases I have had to request the latest ES 
form TAC. The 11.7x firmware has been some of the buggiest phone firmware I 
have seen for Cisco phones in the last 15 years. 12x seems to be much better 
than 11.7 but I am still getting issues with phones freezing up occasionally 
and other weird problems. Waiting to see if 12-0-1SR1-1 finally completely 
resolves those problems.

Jason

From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Haas, 
Neal
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 2:01 AM
To: Bill Talley mailto:btal...@gmail.com>>; NateCCIE 
mailto:natec...@gmail.com>>
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] 8800 Series firmware upgrade 12.0(1) text color


Thats exactly what I am seeing. When you change the background to a lighter 
coloring, you can read everything. I will need to put my glasses on to see if 
it is blurry..



Fine quality control again by Cisco. I have already started the complaint train 
with TAC, tomorrow I will start with the account rep.


Neal

From: Bill Talley mailto:btal...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 9:58:01 PM
To: NateCCIE
Cc: Haas, Neal; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] 8800 Series firmware upgrade 12.0(1) text color

The firmware didn’t adjust the text color in our case... I blurred out some 
characters before posting. He barely visible characters say”DID - 316” as well 
as “Brian” next to the speed dial button.



Sent from a mobile device with very tiny touchscreen input keys. Please excude 
my typtos.

> On Dec 13, 2017, at 11:17 PM, NateCCIE 

Re: [cisco-voip] refurb'ed 7942/7962 - lifetime warranty?

[James O'Neill]

https://www.cxtec.com/ has a good warranty on all their refurbished devices.

James O'Neill

From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio 
Fulgenzi
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 9:13 AM
To: voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) 

Subject: [cisco-voip] refurb'ed 7942/7962 - lifetime warranty?


Anyone have any good suppliers of 7942s that offer a nice warranty on the 
phones?

Lelio







This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended 
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If 
you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. Please 
note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the 
author and do not necessarily represent those of Pasadena I.S.D. Finally, the 
recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of 
viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus 
transmitted by this email.

 Pasadena ISD is an equal opportunity employer and provides equal access to all 
students http://www1.pasadenaisd.org/cms/One.aspx?portalId=80772&pageId=494145
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

[cisco-voip] refurb'ed 7942/7962 - lifetime warranty?

[Lelio Fulgenzi]

Anyone have any good suppliers of 7942s that offer a nice warranty on the 
phones?

Lelio

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

Re: [cisco-voip] FXO hang due to connectivity loss?

[Ki Wi]

The team reported that when there's an minor WAN outage, the FXO ports will
not get disconnect by itself even disconnect tone is defined and working
fine normally.

Regardless it is calling or called party hang up, I'm expecting the voice
gateway to put the FXO port to on-hook status whenever the predefined
disconnected tone is detected.

If there's no definite answer, might need to open a TAC case to conclude
this.


On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 1:41 AM, Norton, Mike 
wrote:

> Are you sure that the gateway is properly detecting the tone and hanging
> up when connectivity *is* working? FXO disconnect is terribly hit-and-miss
> even at the best of times. Disconnect supervision on FXO is more of a
> best-effort attempt than an actual thing.
>
> If the disconnect signal is properly interpreted by the gateway then like
> you I would expect the gateway to end that leg of the call regardless of
> SIP reachability. But I consider that a pretty big if!
>
> -mn
>
> *From:* cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] *On Behalf
> Of *Ki Wi
> *Sent:* December 13, 2017 12:34 AM
> *To:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] FXO hang due to connectivity loss?
>
>
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> If the voice gateway is defined with disconnect tone/ cadence,etc. Should
> a loss of connectivity (SIP signaling between VG and CUCM) cause the FXO
> port not to hang up ?
>
>
>
> To me , SIP is peer to peer signaling. It should not affect the voice
> gateway decision for going on-hook when a disconnect tone is detected even
> there is a loss of connectivity to CUCM.
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Ki Wi
>



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