Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[Matthew Loraditch]

I don’t know anything about EAs, don’t have anyone big enough to sell them to.


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Lelio Fulgenzi 
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 8:19 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
Cc: Anthony Holloway ; Cisco VoIP Group 

Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[EXTERNAL]

After all that I want to ask...

Is UCCx included in EA yet? Or still separate.


Sent from my iPhone


On May 11, 2020, at 8:03 PM, Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph. Do not 
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the 
content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to 
ith...@uoguelph.ca

A port is a port.

Chat/Email and Advanced Outbound Campaigns (predictive/progressive dialing) 
require Flex Premium so agents doing those functions would need premium.




Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com












From: Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 7:11 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>
Cc: Pawlowski, Adam mailto:aj...@buffalo.edu>>; Cisco VoIP 
Group mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[EXTERNAL]

Why did they have to borrow the same names for the licensing levels?  It's like 
when Cisco decided to call UCCX CAD+Finesse Mixed mode, while on CUCM mixed 
mode already meant secure communications.  Anyway.

Ok, so, a port is a port in Flex?  There is no concept of a premium port or a 
standard port then?  Any kind of inbound port can do any kind of feature?  The 
only licensing levels are for Agent/Supervisor capabilities?

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 6:07 PM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
You need to dissociate flex std/prem from L-CCX std/pre. Every feature on flex 
is the equivalent of the L-CCX premium level from a capabilities standpoint.

Does that make sense?

Get Outlook for iOS

Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com













From: Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway%2bcisco-v...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 7:03:47 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>
Cc: Pawlowski, Adam mailto:aj...@buffalo.edu>>; Cisco VoIP 
Group mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[EXTERNAL]

My man!  Always coming through!  So, the Supervisor one is true but the admin 
one is bogus, right?  I mean, about the Premium requirement for each.

So, what is still confusing to me is, in the past, the Premium seat also got 
you 2 premium IVR ports.  Does a standard flex seat get you 2 standard ivr 
ports?  Thus, a mized std/pre felx deal is going to net you a mixed std/pre 
port solution?  How does that work?

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:36 PM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:

A-FLEX-CC has Standard and Premium Licenses.



These are different from non flex licensing.



Standard is inbound agent licensing essentially



Premium is supervisor licensing,   email/chat agents, outbound campaign 
licensing.



2 CTI ports per agent/license.



Admin still works no specific license needed as long as admin isn’t also 
supervisor/agent, HA is included, outside of the 3 features above, it’s like 
perpetual premium with SQL, etc included.



See here for specifics:



https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/unified-communications/cisco-collaboration-flex-plan/datasheet-c78-741220.html
 Table 8.





License enforcement is only in UCCX 12.5. Older versions don’t know and you end 
up with Perpetual Premium with HA feature set but with a license that expires 
at the end of your contract term.



Suffice it to say if you don’t need 12.5 features you could ride the gravy 
train for a while.



Licensing is st

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[Lelio Fulgenzi]

After all that I want to ask...

Is UCCx included in EA yet? Or still separate.



Sent from my iPhone

On May 11, 2020, at 8:03 PM, Matthew Loraditch 
 wrote:



CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph. Do not 
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the 
content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to ith...@uoguelph.ca

A port is a port.

Chat/Email and Advanced Outbound Campaigns (predictive/progressive dialing) 
require Flex Premium so agents doing those functions would need premium.




Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com|  
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com








From: Anthony Holloway 
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 7:11 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
Cc: Pawlowski, Adam ; Cisco VoIP Group 

Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[EXTERNAL]

Why did they have to borrow the same names for the licensing levels?  It's like 
when Cisco decided to call UCCX CAD+Finesse Mixed mode, while on CUCM mixed 
mode already meant secure communications.  Anyway.

Ok, so, a port is a port in Flex?  There is no concept of a premium port or a 
standard port then?  Any kind of inbound port can do any kind of feature?  The 
only licensing levels are for Agent/Supervisor capabilities?

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 6:07 PM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
You need to dissociate flex std/prem from L-CCX std/pre. Every feature on flex 
is the equivalent of the L-CCX premium level from a capabilities standpoint.

Does that make sense?

Get Outlook for iOS

Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com









From: Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway%2bcisco-v...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 7:03:47 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>
Cc: Pawlowski, Adam mailto:aj...@buffalo.edu>>; Cisco VoIP 
Group mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[EXTERNAL]

My man!  Always coming through!  So, the Supervisor one is true but the admin 
one is bogus, right?  I mean, about the Premium requirement for each.

So, what is still confusing to me is, in the past, the Premium seat also got 
you 2 premium IVR ports.  Does a standard flex seat get you 2 standard ivr 
ports?  Thus, a mized std/pre felx deal is going to net you a mixed std/pre 
port solution?  How does that work?

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:36 PM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:

A-FLEX-CC has Standard and Premium Licenses.



These are different from non flex licensing.



Standard is inbound agent licensing essentially



Premium is supervisor licensing,   email/chat agents, outbound campaign 
licensing.



2 CTI ports per agent/license.



Admin still works no specific license needed as long as admin isn’t also 
supervisor/agent, HA is included, outside of the 3 features above, it’s like 
perpetual premium with SQL, etc included.



See here for specifics:



https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/unified-communications/cisco-collaboration-flex-plan/datasheet-c78-741220.html
 Table 8.





License enforcement is only in UCCX 12.5. Older versions don’t know and you end 
up with Perpetual Premium with HA feature set but with a license that expires 
at the end of your contract term.



Suffice it to say if you don’t need 12.5 features you could ride the gravy 
train for a while.



Licensing is still concurrent users.



There are grace periods so if you need to test something you can make the admin 
a supervisor or something w/o breakage, just remember to remove later.



If your customer has on-prem premium, with perpetual trade-in credits you are 
close to the cost of SWSS and should probably try and get them to move.







Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com









From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Anthony Holloway
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 5:21 PM
To: Pawlowski, Adam mailto:aj...@buffalo.edu>>
Cc: Cisco VoIP Group 
mai

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[Matthew Loraditch]

A port is a port.

Chat/Email and Advanced Outbound Campaigns (predictive/progressive dialing) 
require Flex Premium so agents doing those functions would need premium.




Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Anthony Holloway 
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 7:11 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
Cc: Pawlowski, Adam ; Cisco VoIP Group 

Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[EXTERNAL]

Why did they have to borrow the same names for the licensing levels?  It's like 
when Cisco decided to call UCCX CAD+Finesse Mixed mode, while on CUCM mixed 
mode already meant secure communications.  Anyway.

Ok, so, a port is a port in Flex?  There is no concept of a premium port or a 
standard port then?  Any kind of inbound port can do any kind of feature?  The 
only licensing levels are for Agent/Supervisor capabilities?

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 6:07 PM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
You need to dissociate flex std/prem from L-CCX std/pre. Every feature on flex 
is the equivalent of the L-CCX premium level from a capabilities standpoint.

Does that make sense?

Get Outlook for iOS

Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
[Helion Technologies]
[Facebook]
[Twitter]
[LinkedIn]

From: Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway%2bcisco-v...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 7:03:47 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>
Cc: Pawlowski, Adam mailto:aj...@buffalo.edu>>; Cisco VoIP 
Group mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[EXTERNAL]

My man!  Always coming through!  So, the Supervisor one is true but the admin 
one is bogus, right?  I mean, about the Premium requirement for each.

So, what is still confusing to me is, in the past, the Premium seat also got 
you 2 premium IVR ports.  Does a standard flex seat get you 2 standard ivr 
ports?  Thus, a mized std/pre felx deal is going to net you a mixed std/pre 
port solution?  How does that work?

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:36 PM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:

A-FLEX-CC has Standard and Premium Licenses.



These are different from non flex licensing.



Standard is inbound agent licensing essentially



Premium is supervisor licensing,   email/chat agents, outbound campaign 
licensing.



2 CTI ports per agent/license.



Admin still works no specific license needed as long as admin isn’t also 
supervisor/agent, HA is included, outside of the 3 features above, it’s like 
perpetual premium with SQL, etc included.



See here for specifics:



https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/unified-communications/cisco-collaboration-flex-plan/datasheet-c78-741220.html
 Table 8.





License enforcement is only in UCCX 12.5. Older versions don’t know and you end 
up with Perpetual Premium with HA feature set but with a license that expires 
at the end of your contract term.



Suffice it to say if you don’t need 12.5 features you could ride the gravy 
train for a while.



Licensing is still concurrent users.



There are grace periods so if you need to test something you can make the admin 
a supervisor or something w/o breakage, just remember to remove later.



If your customer has on-prem premium, with perpetual trade-in credits you are 
close to the cost of SWSS and should probably try and get them to move.







Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
[Helion Technologies]
[Facebook]
[Twitter]
[LinkedIn]

From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Anthony Holloway
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 5:21 PM
To: Pawlowski, Adam mailto:aj...@buffalo.edu>>
Cc: Cisco VoIP Group 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing



[EXTERNAL]



But seriously, a premium license to administer the system?  Does this include 
the appadministrator account too?  Do you have first hand experience with it?



On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:16 PM Pawlowski, Adam 
mailto:aj...@buffalo.edu>> wrote:

This was the information I heard as well, and the purchase quantities are based 
on feature utilization and concurrency.







From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Brian Meade
Sent: Mon

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[Raffi Rodrigo]

alguem tem sala da cisco webex?

Em seg., 11 de mai. de 2020 às 20:17, Anthony Holloway <
avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> escreveu:

> Why did they have to borrow the same names for the licensing levels?  It's
> like when Cisco decided to call UCCX CAD+Finesse Mixed mode, while on CUCM
> mixed mode already meant secure communications.  Anyway.
>
> Ok, so, a port is a port in Flex?  There is no concept of a premium port
> or a standard port then?  Any kind of inbound port can do any kind of
> feature?  The only licensing levels are for Agent/Supervisor capabilities?
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 6:07 PM Matthew Loraditch <
> mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:
>
>> You need to dissociate flex std/prem from L-CCX std/pre. Every feature on
>> flex is the equivalent of the L-CCX premium level from a capabilities
>> standpoint.
>>
>> Does that make sense?
>>
>> Get Outlook for iOS 
>>
>> Matthew Loraditch​
>> Sr. Network Engineer
>> p: *443.541.1518* <443.541.1518>
>> w: *www.heliontechnologies.com*   |
>> e: *mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com*
>> 
>> [image: Helion Technologies] 
>> [image: Facebook] 
>> [image: Twitter] 
>> [image: LinkedIn] 
>> --
>> *From:* Anthony Holloway 
>> *Sent:* Monday, May 11, 2020 7:03:47 PM
>> *To:* Matthew Loraditch 
>> *Cc:* Pawlowski, Adam ; Cisco VoIP Group <
>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing
>>
>>
>> [EXTERNAL]
>>
>> My man!  Always coming through!  So, the Supervisor one is true but the
>> admin one is bogus, right?  I mean, about the Premium requirement for each.
>>
>> So, what is still confusing to me is, in the past, the Premium seat also
>> got you 2 premium IVR ports.  Does a standard flex seat get you 2 standard
>> ivr ports?  Thus, a mized std/pre felx deal is going to net you a mixed
>> std/pre port solution?  How does that work?
>>
>> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:36 PM Matthew Loraditch <
>> mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:
>>
>> A-FLEX-CC has Standard and Premium Licenses.
>>
>>
>>
>> These are different from non flex licensing.
>>
>>
>>
>> Standard is inbound agent licensing essentially
>>
>>
>>
>> Premium is supervisor licensing,   email/chat agents, outbound campaign
>> licensing.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2 CTI ports per agent/license.
>>
>>
>>
>> Admin still works no specific license needed as long as admin isn’t also
>> supervisor/agent, HA is included, outside of the 3 features above, it’s
>> like perpetual premium with SQL, etc included.
>>
>>
>>
>> See here for specifics:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/unified-communications/cisco-collaboration-flex-plan/datasheet-c78-741220.html
>> Table 8.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> License enforcement is only in UCCX 12.5. Older versions don’t know and
>> you end up with Perpetual Premium with HA feature set but with a license
>> that expires at the end of your contract term.
>>
>>
>>
>> Suffice it to say if you don’t need 12.5 features you could ride the
>> gravy train for a while.
>>
>>
>>
>> Licensing is still concurrent users.
>>
>>
>>
>> There are grace periods so if you need to test something you can make the
>> admin a supervisor or something w/o breakage, just remember to remove later.
>>
>>
>>
>> If your customer has on-prem premium, with perpetual trade-in credits you
>> are close to the cost of SWSS and should probably try and get them to move.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Matthew Loraditch​
>> Sr. Network Engineer
>> p: *443.541.1518* <443.541.1518>
>> w: *www.heliontechnologies.com*   |
>> e: *mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com*
>> 
>> [image: Helion Technologies] 
>> [image: Facebook] 
>> [image: Twitter] 
>> [image: LinkedIn] 
>>
>> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of 
>> *Anthony
>> Holloway
>> *Sent:* Monday, May 11, 2020 5:21 PM
>> *To:* Pawlowski, Adam 
>> *Cc:* Cisco VoIP Group 
>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing
>>
>>
>>
>> [EXTERNAL]
>>
>>
>>
>> But seriously, a premium license to administer the system?  Does this
>> include the appadministrator account too?  Do you have first hand
>> experience with it?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:16 PM Pawlowski, Adam 
>> wrote:
>>
>> This was the information I heard as well, and the purchase quantities are
>> based on feature utilization and concurrency.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Brian
>> Meade
>> *Sent:* Monday, May 11, 2020 5:07 PM
>> *To:* Anthony Holloway 
>> *Cc:* Cisco VoIP Group 
>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing
>>
>>
>>
>> Pretty sure when buying as A-Flex-CC that it always just gives you
>> P

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[Anthony Holloway]

Why did they have to borrow the same names for the licensing levels?  It's
like when Cisco decided to call UCCX CAD+Finesse Mixed mode, while on CUCM
mixed mode already meant secure communications.  Anyway.

Ok, so, a port is a port in Flex?  There is no concept of a premium port or
a standard port then?  Any kind of inbound port can do any kind of
feature?  The only licensing levels are for Agent/Supervisor capabilities?

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 6:07 PM Matthew Loraditch <
mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:

> You need to dissociate flex std/prem from L-CCX std/pre. Every feature on
> flex is the equivalent of the L-CCX premium level from a capabilities
> standpoint.
>
> Does that make sense?
>
> Get Outlook for iOS 
>
> Matthew Loraditch​
> Sr. Network Engineer
> p: *443.541.1518* <443.541.1518>
> w: *www.heliontechnologies.com*   |
> e: *mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com* 
> [image: Helion Technologies] 
> [image: Facebook] 
> [image: Twitter] 
> [image: LinkedIn] 
> --
> *From:* Anthony Holloway 
> *Sent:* Monday, May 11, 2020 7:03:47 PM
> *To:* Matthew Loraditch 
> *Cc:* Pawlowski, Adam ; Cisco VoIP Group <
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing
>
>
> [EXTERNAL]
>
> My man!  Always coming through!  So, the Supervisor one is true but the
> admin one is bogus, right?  I mean, about the Premium requirement for each.
>
> So, what is still confusing to me is, in the past, the Premium seat also
> got you 2 premium IVR ports.  Does a standard flex seat get you 2 standard
> ivr ports?  Thus, a mized std/pre felx deal is going to net you a mixed
> std/pre port solution?  How does that work?
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:36 PM Matthew Loraditch <
> mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:
>
> A-FLEX-CC has Standard and Premium Licenses.
>
>
>
> These are different from non flex licensing.
>
>
>
> Standard is inbound agent licensing essentially
>
>
>
> Premium is supervisor licensing,   email/chat agents, outbound campaign
> licensing.
>
>
>
> 2 CTI ports per agent/license.
>
>
>
> Admin still works no specific license needed as long as admin isn’t also
> supervisor/agent, HA is included, outside of the 3 features above, it’s
> like perpetual premium with SQL, etc included.
>
>
>
> See here for specifics:
>
>
>
>
> https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/unified-communications/cisco-collaboration-flex-plan/datasheet-c78-741220.html
> Table 8.
>
>
>
>
>
> License enforcement is only in UCCX 12.5. Older versions don’t know and
> you end up with Perpetual Premium with HA feature set but with a license
> that expires at the end of your contract term.
>
>
>
> Suffice it to say if you don’t need 12.5 features you could ride the gravy
> train for a while.
>
>
>
> Licensing is still concurrent users.
>
>
>
> There are grace periods so if you need to test something you can make the
> admin a supervisor or something w/o breakage, just remember to remove later.
>
>
>
> If your customer has on-prem premium, with perpetual trade-in credits you
> are close to the cost of SWSS and should probably try and get them to move.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Matthew Loraditch​
> Sr. Network Engineer
> p: *443.541.1518* <443.541.1518>
> w: *www.heliontechnologies.com*   |
> e: *mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com* 
> [image: Helion Technologies] 
> [image: Facebook] 
> [image: Twitter] 
> [image: LinkedIn] 
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Anthony
> Holloway
> *Sent:* Monday, May 11, 2020 5:21 PM
> *To:* Pawlowski, Adam 
> *Cc:* Cisco VoIP Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing
>
>
>
> [EXTERNAL]
>
>
>
> But seriously, a premium license to administer the system?  Does this
> include the appadministrator account too?  Do you have first hand
> experience with it?
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:16 PM Pawlowski, Adam  wrote:
>
> This was the information I heard as well, and the purchase quantities are
> based on feature utilization and concurrency.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Brian
> Meade
> *Sent:* Monday, May 11, 2020 5:07 PM
> *To:* Anthony Holloway 
> *Cc:* Cisco VoIP Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing
>
>
>
> Pretty sure when buying as A-Flex-CC that it always just gives you Premium
> licensing on the CCX side.  Had this cause an issue with a customer that
> was staying on Enhanced for the extra CTI ports for many years.
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:23 PM Anthony Holloway <
> avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> All,
>
>
>
> Anyone already deal with this themselves?  I am reading/bein

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[Matthew Loraditch]

You need to dissociate flex std/prem from L-CCX std/pre. Every feature on flex 
is the equivalent of the L-CCX premium level from a capabilities standpoint.

Does that make sense?

Get Outlook for iOS

Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com

From: Anthony Holloway 
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 7:03:47 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
Cc: Pawlowski, Adam ; Cisco VoIP Group 

Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing


[EXTERNAL]


My man!  Always coming through!  So, the Supervisor one is true but the admin 
one is bogus, right?  I mean, about the Premium requirement for each.

So, what is still confusing to me is, in the past, the Premium seat also got 
you 2 premium IVR ports.  Does a standard flex seat get you 2 standard ivr 
ports?  Thus, a mized std/pre felx deal is going to net you a mixed std/pre 
port solution?  How does that work?

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:36 PM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:

A-FLEX-CC has Standard and Premium Licenses.



These are different from non flex licensing.



Standard is inbound agent licensing essentially



Premium is supervisor licensing,   email/chat agents, outbound campaign 
licensing.



2 CTI ports per agent/license.



Admin still works no specific license needed as long as admin isn’t also 
supervisor/agent, HA is included, outside of the 3 features above, it’s like 
perpetual premium with SQL, etc included.



See here for specifics:



https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/unified-communications/cisco-collaboration-flex-plan/datasheet-c78-741220.html
 Table 8.





License enforcement is only in UCCX 12.5. Older versions don’t know and you end 
up with Perpetual Premium with HA feature set but with a license that expires 
at the end of your contract term.



Suffice it to say if you don’t need 12.5 features you could ride the gravy 
train for a while.



Licensing is still concurrent users.



There are grace periods so if you need to test something you can make the admin 
a supervisor or something w/o breakage, just remember to remove later.



If your customer has on-prem premium, with perpetual trade-in credits you are 
close to the cost of SWSS and should probably try and get them to move.








Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com|  
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
[Helion Technologies]
[Facebook]
[Twitter]
[LinkedIn]

From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Anthony Holloway
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 5:21 PM
To: Pawlowski, Adam mailto:aj...@buffalo.edu>>
Cc: Cisco VoIP Group 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing



[EXTERNAL]



But seriously, a premium license to administer the system?  Does this include 
the appadministrator account too?  Do you have first hand experience with it?



On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:16 PM Pawlowski, Adam 
mailto:aj...@buffalo.edu>> wrote:

This was the information I heard as well, and the purchase quantities are based 
on feature utilization and concurrency.







From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Brian Meade
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 5:07 PM
To: Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway%2bcisco-v...@gmail.com>>
Cc: Cisco VoIP Group 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing



Pretty sure when buying as A-Flex-CC that it always just gives you Premium 
licensing on the CCX side.  Had this cause an issue with a customer that was 
staying on Enhanced for the extra CTI ports for many years.



On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:23 PM Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway%2bcisco-v...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:

All,



Anyone already deal with this themselves?  I am reading/being told something I 
cannot swallow as the truth, because it seems so ridiculous.



I am being told that you need a Premium license to even login as a Supervisor 
at all.  Like, not for extra functionality (silent monitoring), but just as a 
basic license requirement to even sign in.



Also, I am being told a Premium license is required for Administrative users 
too.  Like, even the app admin account.  So what, completing a fresh install 
now requires a Premium license?



Are either of these true?  Can you confirm from your own tests that this is in 
fact how Flex works in UCCX on-prem?

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

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[Anthony Holloway]

My man!  Always coming through!  So, the Supervisor one is true but the
admin one is bogus, right?  I mean, about the Premium requirement for each.

So, what is still confusing to me is, in the past, the Premium seat also
got you 2 premium IVR ports.  Does a standard flex seat get you 2 standard
ivr ports?  Thus, a mized std/pre felx deal is going to net you a mixed
std/pre port solution?  How does that work?

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:36 PM Matthew Loraditch <
mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:

> A-FLEX-CC has Standard and Premium Licenses.
>
>
>
> These are different from non flex licensing.
>
>
>
> Standard is inbound agent licensing essentially
>
>
>
> Premium is supervisor licensing,   email/chat agents, outbound campaign
> licensing.
>
>
>
> 2 CTI ports per agent/license.
>
>
>
> Admin still works no specific license needed as long as admin isn’t also
> supervisor/agent, HA is included, outside of the 3 features above, it’s
> like perpetual premium with SQL, etc included.
>
>
>
> See here for specifics:
>
>
>
>
> https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/unified-communications/cisco-collaboration-flex-plan/datasheet-c78-741220.html
> Table 8.
>
>
>
>
>
> License enforcement is only in UCCX 12.5. Older versions don’t know and
> you end up with Perpetual Premium with HA feature set but with a license
> that expires at the end of your contract term.
>
>
>
> Suffice it to say if you don’t need 12.5 features you could ride the gravy
> train for a while.
>
>
>
> Licensing is still concurrent users.
>
>
>
> There are grace periods so if you need to test something you can make the
> admin a supervisor or something w/o breakage, just remember to remove later.
>
>
>
> If your customer has on-prem premium, with perpetual trade-in credits you
> are close to the cost of SWSS and should probably try and get them to move.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Matthew Loraditch​
> Sr. Network Engineer
> p: *443.541.1518* <443.541.1518>
> w: *www.heliontechnologies.com*   |
> e: *mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com* 
> [image: Helion Technologies] 
> [image: Facebook] 
> [image: Twitter] 
> [image: LinkedIn] 
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Anthony
> Holloway
> *Sent:* Monday, May 11, 2020 5:21 PM
> *To:* Pawlowski, Adam 
> *Cc:* Cisco VoIP Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing
>
>
>
> [EXTERNAL]
>
>
>
> But seriously, a premium license to administer the system?  Does this
> include the appadministrator account too?  Do you have first hand
> experience with it?
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:16 PM Pawlowski, Adam  wrote:
>
> This was the information I heard as well, and the purchase quantities are
> based on feature utilization and concurrency.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Brian
> Meade
> *Sent:* Monday, May 11, 2020 5:07 PM
> *To:* Anthony Holloway 
> *Cc:* Cisco VoIP Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing
>
>
>
> Pretty sure when buying as A-Flex-CC that it always just gives you Premium
> licensing on the CCX side.  Had this cause an issue with a customer that
> was staying on Enhanced for the extra CTI ports for many years.
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:23 PM Anthony Holloway <
> avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> All,
>
>
>
> Anyone already deal with this themselves?  I am reading/being told
> something I cannot swallow as the truth, because it seems so ridiculous.
>
>
>
> I am being told that you need a Premium license to even login as a
> Supervisor at all.  Like, not for extra functionality (silent monitoring),
> but just as a basic license requirement to even sign in.
>
>
>
> Also, I am being told a Premium license is required for Administrative
> users too.  Like, even the app admin account.  So what, completing a fresh
> install now requires a Premium license?
>
>
>
> Are either of these true?  Can you confirm from your own tests that this
> is in fact how Flex works in UCCX on-prem?
>
> ___
> 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] UCCX Flex Licensing

[Matthew Loraditch]

A-FLEX-CC has Standard and Premium Licenses.

These are different from non flex licensing.

Standard is inbound agent licensing essentially

Premium is supervisor licensing,   email/chat agents, outbound campaign 
licensing.

2 CTI ports per agent/license.

Admin still works no specific license needed as long as admin isn’t also 
supervisor/agent, HA is included, outside of the 3 features above, it’s like 
perpetual premium with SQL, etc included.

See here for specifics:

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/unified-communications/cisco-collaboration-flex-plan/datasheet-c78-741220.html
 Table 8.


License enforcement is only in UCCX 12.5. Older versions don’t know and you end 
up with Perpetual Premium with HA feature set but with a license that expires 
at the end of your contract term.

Suffice it to say if you don’t need 12.5 features you could ride the gravy 
train for a while.

Licensing is still concurrent users.

There are grace periods so if you need to test something you can make the admin 
a supervisor or something w/o breakage, just remember to remove later.

If your customer has on-prem premium, with perpetual trade-in credits you are 
close to the cost of SWSS and should probably try and get them to move.




Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of Anthony 
Holloway
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 5:21 PM
To: Pawlowski, Adam 
Cc: Cisco VoIP Group 
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[EXTERNAL]

But seriously, a premium license to administer the system?  Does this include 
the appadministrator account too?  Do you have first hand experience with it?

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:16 PM Pawlowski, Adam 
mailto:aj...@buffalo.edu>> wrote:
This was the information I heard as well, and the purchase quantities are based 
on feature utilization and concurrency.



From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Brian Meade
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 5:07 PM
To: Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway%2bcisco-v...@gmail.com>>
Cc: Cisco VoIP Group 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

Pretty sure when buying as A-Flex-CC that it always just gives you Premium 
licensing on the CCX side.  Had this cause an issue with a customer that was 
staying on Enhanced for the extra CTI ports for many years.

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:23 PM Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway%2bcisco-v...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:
All,

Anyone already deal with this themselves?  I am reading/being told something I 
cannot swallow as the truth, because it seems so ridiculous.

I am being told that you need a Premium license to even login as a Supervisor 
at all.  Like, not for extra functionality (silent monitoring), but just as a 
basic license requirement to even sign in.

Also, I am being told a Premium license is required for Administrative users 
too.  Like, even the app admin account.  So what, completing a fresh install 
now requires a Premium license?

Are either of these true?  Can you confirm from your own tests that this is in 
fact how Flex works in UCCX on-prem?
___
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] UCCX Flex Licensing

[Brian Meade]

It seems to be the same license consumption as before from what I've seen
but just they only give you Premium licenses now.

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 5:21 PM Anthony Holloway <
avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:

> But seriously, a premium license to administer the system?  Does this
> include the appadministrator account too?  Do you have first hand
> experience with it?
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:16 PM Pawlowski, Adam  wrote:
>
>> This was the information I heard as well, and the purchase quantities are
>> based on feature utilization and concurrency.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Brian
>> Meade
>> *Sent:* Monday, May 11, 2020 5:07 PM
>> *To:* Anthony Holloway 
>> *Cc:* Cisco VoIP Group 
>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing
>>
>>
>>
>> Pretty sure when buying as A-Flex-CC that it always just gives you
>> Premium licensing on the CCX side.  Had this cause an issue with a customer
>> that was staying on Enhanced for the extra CTI ports for many years.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:23 PM Anthony Holloway <
>> avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>>
>>
>> Anyone already deal with this themselves?  I am reading/being told
>> something I cannot swallow as the truth, because it seems so ridiculous.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am being told that you need a Premium license to even login as a
>> Supervisor at all.  Like, not for extra functionality (silent monitoring),
>> but just as a basic license requirement to even sign in.
>>
>>
>>
>> Also, I am being told a Premium license is required for Administrative
>> users too.  Like, even the app admin account.  So what, completing a fresh
>> install now requires a Premium license?
>>
>>
>>
>> Are either of these true?  Can you confirm from your own tests that this
>> is in fact how Flex works in UCCX on-prem?
>>
>> ___
>> 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] UCCX Flex Licensing

[Anthony Holloway]

But seriously, a premium license to administer the system?  Does this
include the appadministrator account too?  Do you have first hand
experience with it?

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:16 PM Pawlowski, Adam  wrote:

> This was the information I heard as well, and the purchase quantities are
> based on feature utilization and concurrency.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Brian
> Meade
> *Sent:* Monday, May 11, 2020 5:07 PM
> *To:* Anthony Holloway 
> *Cc:* Cisco VoIP Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing
>
>
>
> Pretty sure when buying as A-Flex-CC that it always just gives you Premium
> licensing on the CCX side.  Had this cause an issue with a customer that
> was staying on Enhanced for the extra CTI ports for many years.
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:23 PM Anthony Holloway <
> avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> All,
>
>
>
> Anyone already deal with this themselves?  I am reading/being told
> something I cannot swallow as the truth, because it seems so ridiculous.
>
>
>
> I am being told that you need a Premium license to even login as a
> Supervisor at all.  Like, not for extra functionality (silent monitoring),
> but just as a basic license requirement to even sign in.
>
>
>
> Also, I am being told a Premium license is required for Administrative
> users too.  Like, even the app admin account.  So what, completing a fresh
> install now requires a Premium license?
>
>
>
> Are either of these true?  Can you confirm from your own tests that this
> is in fact how Flex works in UCCX on-prem?
>
> ___
> 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] UCCX Flex Licensing

[Anthony Holloway]

Thanks for replying Brian, you're always a good resource for me to lean on.

I've seen Standard CC Flex out there, so maybe that's newer.  But also yes,
the fact that they now charge for each non-premium port has some large
consequences for customers who've deployed CallBack and/or Self Service
IVRs, for which a 1:2 agent:port ratio will not solve.

Under UCCX Flex you also cannot just buy a port, like you can with UCCE
Flex, and so, you just gotta sell more agents a la perpetual UCCX Premium
days.

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:07 PM Brian Meade  wrote:

> Pretty sure when buying as A-Flex-CC that it always just gives you Premium
> licensing on the CCX side.  Had this cause an issue with a customer that
> was staying on Enhanced for the extra CTI ports for many years.
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:23 PM Anthony Holloway <
> avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> Anyone already deal with this themselves?  I am reading/being told
>> something I cannot swallow as the truth, because it seems so ridiculous.
>>
>> I am being told that you need a Premium license to even login as a
>> Supervisor at all.  Like, not for extra functionality (silent monitoring),
>> but just as a basic license requirement to even sign in.
>>
>> Also, I am being told a Premium license is required for Administrative
>> users too.  Like, even the app admin account.  So what, completing a fresh
>> install now requires a Premium license?
>>
>> Are either of these true?  Can you confirm from your own tests that this
>> is in fact how Flex works in UCCX on-prem?
>> ___
>> 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] UCCX Flex Licensing

[Pawlowski, Adam]

This was the information I heard as well, and the purchase quantities are based 
on feature utilization and concurrency.



From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of Brian Meade
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 5:07 PM
To: Anthony Holloway 
Cc: Cisco VoIP Group 
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

Pretty sure when buying as A-Flex-CC that it always just gives you Premium 
licensing on the CCX side.  Had this cause an issue with a customer that was 
staying on Enhanced for the extra CTI ports for many years.

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:23 PM Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway%2bcisco-v...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:
All,

Anyone already deal with this themselves?  I am reading/being told something I 
cannot swallow as the truth, because it seems so ridiculous.

I am being told that you need a Premium license to even login as a Supervisor 
at all.  Like, not for extra functionality (silent monitoring), but just as a 
basic license requirement to even sign in.

Also, I am being told a Premium license is required for Administrative users 
too.  Like, even the app admin account.  So what, completing a fresh install 
now requires a Premium license?

Are either of these true?  Can you confirm from your own tests that this is in 
fact how Flex works in UCCX on-prem?
___
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] UCCX Flex Licensing

[Brian Meade]

Pretty sure when buying as A-Flex-CC that it always just gives you Premium
licensing on the CCX side.  Had this cause an issue with a customer that
was staying on Enhanced for the extra CTI ports for many years.

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:23 PM Anthony Holloway <
avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:

> All,
>
> Anyone already deal with this themselves?  I am reading/being told
> something I cannot swallow as the truth, because it seems so ridiculous.
>
> I am being told that you need a Premium license to even login as a
> Supervisor at all.  Like, not for extra functionality (silent monitoring),
> but just as a basic license requirement to even sign in.
>
> Also, I am being told a Premium license is required for Administrative
> users too.  Like, even the app admin account.  So what, completing a fresh
> install now requires a Premium license?
>
> Are either of these true?  Can you confirm from your own tests that this
> is in fact how Flex works in UCCX on-prem?
> ___
> 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] DRS Message Restore & DRS File Decrypter Updated

[Ryan Huff]

Cool man! Take a victory lap cause Cisco is no longer going to play “hide the 
cheese” with you each time they tweak the salt functions in new versions. Think 
of all the free time!

Lol... cheers Pete.

Sent from my iPhone

On May 11, 2020, at 16:23, Pete Brown  wrote:


Yes, all that’s been ironed out.  Jeff had to deal with a ridiculous amount of 
red tape to make it happen.  Plus he did a great job of cleaning up the code 
(packaging, logging, error handing, etc).

I’m just happy that it’s now a “blessed” utility instead of something that’s 
frowned on in the Community forums.

Sent from 
Mail
 for Windows 10

From: Anthony Holloway
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 12:20 PM
To: Pete Brown
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] DRS Message Restore & DRS File Decrypter Updated

Are these based off of your tools?  If so, are you credited in any way?

On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 12:36 PM Pete Brown 
mailto:j...@chykn.com>> wrote:
Just a heads up, Cisco has made some updates to the DRS file decryption tool 
and released it for customer use.  Jeff Lindborg has also updated the DRS 
Message Restore (fka DRS Message Fisher) tool .  Both are available here.

http://www.ciscounitytools.com/Applications/CxN/DRSMessageFisher/DRSMessageFisher.html

I’m leaving my tools page and GitHub repo up, but I’d recommend using Cisco’s 
version going forward.  It’s been fun!  😊


Sent from 
Mail
 for Windows 10

___
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://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpuck.nether.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcisco-voip&data=02%7C01%7C%7C35d15450ed2a4b40e1f608d7f5e92b1a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637248254103371770&sdata=vLOBtpIK0PS497%2FbxcG113xKYbtmSVZL7KGxsuMAMVU%3D&reserved=0
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] DRS Message Restore & DRS File Decrypter Updated

[Anthony Holloway]

What an accomplishment!  Not many people can say they've written tools for
which Cisco has adopted.  That's something special, and you're awesome for
having helped kick start those tools for all of us.  Thank you.

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 3:28 PM Stephen Welsh 
wrote:

> Well done Pete, and thank you for sharing your hard earned expertise ;)
>
> Stephen
>
> On 11 May 2020, at 21:22, Pete Brown  wrote:
>
> Yes, all that’s been ironed out.  Jeff had to deal with a ridiculous
> amount of red tape to make it happen.  Plus he did a great job of cleaning
> up the code (packaging, logging, error handing, etc).
>
> I’m just happy that it’s now a “blessed” utility instead of something
> that’s frowned on in the Community forums.
>
> Sent from Mail  for
> Windows 10
>
> *From: *Anthony Holloway 
> *Sent: *Monday, May 11, 2020 12:20 PM
> *To: *Pete Brown 
> *Cc: *cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> *Subject: *Re: [cisco-voip] DRS Message Restore & DRS File Decrypter
> Updated
>
> Are these based off of your tools?  If so, are you credited in any way?
>
> On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 12:36 PM Pete Brown  wrote:
>
> Just a heads up, Cisco has made some updates to the DRS file decryption
> tool and released it for customer use.  Jeff Lindborg has also updated the
> DRS Message Restore (fka DRS Message Fisher) tool .  Both are available
> here.
>
>
>
> http://www.ciscounitytools.com/Applications/CxN/DRSMessageFisher/DRSMessageFisher.html
> 
>
>
> I’m leaving my tools page and GitHub repo up, but I’d recommend using
> Cisco’s version going forward.  It’s been fun!  😊
>
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail
> 
>  for Windows 10
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] DRS Message Restore & DRS File Decrypter Updated

[Stephen Welsh]

Well done Pete, and thank you for sharing your hard earned expertise ;)

Stephen

On 11 May 2020, at 21:22, Pete Brown mailto:j...@chykn.com>> 
wrote:

Yes, all that’s been ironed out.  Jeff had to deal with a ridiculous amount of 
red tape to make it happen.  Plus he did a great job of cleaning up the code 
(packaging, logging, error handing, etc).

I’m just happy that it’s now a “blessed” utility instead of something that’s 
frowned on in the Community forums.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Anthony Holloway
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 12:20 PM
To: Pete Brown
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] DRS Message Restore & DRS File Decrypter Updated

Are these based off of your tools?  If so, are you credited in any way?

On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 12:36 PM Pete Brown 
mailto:j...@chykn.com>> wrote:
Just a heads up, Cisco has made some updates to the DRS file decryption tool 
and released it for customer use.  Jeff Lindborg has also updated the DRS 
Message Restore (fka DRS Message Fisher) tool .  Both are available here.

http://www.ciscounitytools.com/Applications/CxN/DRSMessageFisher/DRSMessageFisher.html

I’m leaving my tools page and GitHub repo up, but I’d recommend using Cisco’s 
version going forward.  It’s been fun!  😊


Sent from 
Mail
 for Windows 10

___
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] UCCX Flex Licensing

[Anthony Holloway]

All,

Anyone already deal with this themselves?  I am reading/being told
something I cannot swallow as the truth, because it seems so ridiculous.

I am being told that you need a Premium license to even login as a
Supervisor at all.  Like, not for extra functionality (silent monitoring),
but just as a basic license requirement to even sign in.

Also, I am being told a Premium license is required for Administrative
users too.  Like, even the app admin account.  So what, completing a fresh
install now requires a Premium license?

Are either of these true?  Can you confirm from your own tests that this is
in fact how Flex works in UCCX on-prem?
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] DRS Message Restore & DRS File Decrypter Updated

[Pete Brown]

Yes, all that’s been ironed out.  Jeff had to deal with a ridiculous amount of 
red tape to make it happen.  Plus he did a great job of cleaning up the code 
(packaging, logging, error handing, etc).

I’m just happy that it’s now a “blessed” utility instead of something that’s 
frowned on in the Community forums.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Anthony Holloway
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 12:20 PM
To: Pete Brown
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] DRS Message Restore & DRS File Decrypter Updated

Are these based off of your tools?  If so, are you credited in any way?

On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 12:36 PM Pete Brown 
mailto:j...@chykn.com>> wrote:
Just a heads up, Cisco has made some updates to the DRS file decryption tool 
and released it for customer use.  Jeff Lindborg has also updated the DRS 
Message Restore (fka DRS Message Fisher) tool .  Both are available here.

http://www.ciscounitytools.com/Applications/CxN/DRSMessageFisher/DRSMessageFisher.html

I’m leaving my tools page and GitHub repo up, but I’d recommend using Cisco’s 
version going forward.  It’s been fun!  😊


Sent from 
Mail
 for Windows 10

___
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] Cisco Product Tech Docs

[Anthony Holloway]

Anyone else notice the changes to the support doc sites for our beloved
products?

Example:

*Current Version for UCCX*
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/customer-collaboration/unified-contact-center-express-11-6-2/model.html


A giant list of mostly irrelevant documents, and giving up prime real
estate on the top/front to articles such as:
[image: image.png]

Not to mention the categories are dynamically loaded, hiding some and
showing others base on something, but not sure what, and it's probably not
view count, because Release Notes didn't make the cut, but Sales Resources
did.  Should sales resources really be under tech support docs?  Isn't that
what product sales page
 is for?

*Previous Version for UCCX*
https://web.archive.org/web/20200229125222/https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/customer-collaboration/unified-contact-center-express/tsd-products-support-series-home.html


A nicely* organized  document structure based on task or category of
information, which can then be further qualified by version.

*Nicely is subjective, I'll give you that.  And it had it's own problems,
but this current layout is way worse.

I only used UCCX as an example here, but it appears to be this way for all
products.

Maybe I'm not seeing the glass half full on this one?  What do you think?

FWIW, I've already submitted feedback on the website and also tweeted at
@HeyCisco my thoughts.
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] uccx contactcalldetail table - number of indexes

[Anthony Holloway]

Oh wow, that is interesting for sure.

I wish I could spin up a fresh HA 11.6(2) for you.

Good luck and do post back here and to the forums if you end up solving
it.  I'd like to know myself.

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 12:37 PM cormac o donnell <
cormacodonn...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> We had a query which was running for 8 years with no issues. After a
> "glitch" one weekend on the uccx the query went from taking 40ms to
> 50ms . When I ran on sub it still only took 40 ms . I looked at the
> difference between the tables used in the query and pub had one index on
> contactcalldetail while sub had two indexes . It seems that pub has lost an
> index. Cisco have said the table should only have one index ..which
> baffles me .
>
> Sent from Outlook Mobile 
>
> --
> *From:* Anthony Holloway 
> *Sent:* Monday, May 11, 2020 6:23:14 PM
> *To:* cormac o donnell 
> *Cc:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net 
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] uccx contactcalldetail table - number of
> indexes
>
> Hey there! I saw your post on the forums too, and I looked in the
> database schema to see if that information was in there, and I didn't find
> it.
>
> Out of curiosity, what do you need this information for?  Simply to know
> if there is an issue between the difference on the pub and sub?
>
> I don't have the resources to spin up a new 11.6(2) HA fresh for you to
> check, but maybe someone else can or knows something.
>
> Even the devnetsandbox.cisco.com might show unexpected results since
> those are never fresh installs either.  Otherwise, I'd recommend that.
>
> On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 6:58 PM cormac o donnell <
> cormacodonn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> HI
>
> I have an issue with UCCX install. The pub and sub arenot in sync it
> seems. in particular the ContactCallDetail table on SUB has two indexes but
> the same table on PUB has only one. Can anyone confirm the number of
> indexes the ContactCallDetail table should have by default - on a fresh
> install ?
>
> Regards
>
> Cormac
> ___
> 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] uccx contactcalldetail table - number of indexes

[cormac o donnell]

We had a query which was running for 8 years with no issues. After a "glitch" 
one weekend on the uccx the query went from taking 40ms to 50ms . When I 
ran on sub it still only took 40 ms . I looked at the difference between the 
tables used in the query and pub had one index on contactcalldetail while sub 
had two indexes . It seems that pub has lost an index. Cisco have said the 
table should only have one index ..which baffles me .

Sent from Outlook Mobile


From: Anthony Holloway 
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 6:23:14 PM
To: cormac o donnell 
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net 
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] uccx contactcalldetail table - number of indexes

Hey there! I saw your post on the forums too, and I looked in the database 
schema to see if that information was in there, and I didn't find it.

Out of curiosity, what do you need this information for?  Simply to know if 
there is an issue between the difference on the pub and sub?

I don't have the resources to spin up a new 11.6(2) HA fresh for you to check, 
but maybe someone else can or knows something.

Even the devnetsandbox.cisco.com might show 
unexpected results since those are never fresh installs either.  Otherwise, I'd 
recommend that.

On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 6:58 PM cormac o donnell 
mailto:cormacodonn...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
HI

I have an issue with UCCX install. The pub and sub arenot in sync it seems. in 
particular the ContactCallDetail table on SUB has two indexes but the same 
table on PUB has only one. Can anyone confirm the number of indexes the 
ContactCallDetail table should have by default - on a fresh install ?

Regards

Cormac
___
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] uccx contactcalldetail table - number of indexes

[Anthony Holloway]

Hey there! I saw your post on the forums too, and I looked in the
database schema to see if that information was in there, and I didn't find
it.

Out of curiosity, what do you need this information for?  Simply to know if
there is an issue between the difference on the pub and sub?

I don't have the resources to spin up a new 11.6(2) HA fresh for you to
check, but maybe someone else can or knows something.

Even the devnetsandbox.cisco.com might show unexpected results since those
are never fresh installs either.  Otherwise, I'd recommend that.

On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 6:58 PM cormac o donnell 
wrote:

> HI
>
> I have an issue with UCCX install. The pub and sub arenot in sync it
> seems. in particular the ContactCallDetail table on SUB has two indexes but
> the same table on PUB has only one. Can anyone confirm the number of
> indexes the ContactCallDetail table should have by default - on a fresh
> install ?
>
> Regards
>
> Cormac
> ___
> 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] DRS Message Restore & DRS File Decrypter Updated

[Anthony Holloway]

Are these based off of your tools?  If so, are you credited in any way?

On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 12:36 PM Pete Brown  wrote:

> Just a heads up, Cisco has made some updates to the DRS file decryption
> tool and released it for customer use.  Jeff Lindborg has also updated the
> DRS Message Restore (fka DRS Message Fisher) tool .  Both are available
> here.
>
>
>
>
> http://www.ciscounitytools.com/Applications/CxN/DRSMessageFisher/DRSMessageFisher.html
>
>
>
> I’m leaving my tools page and GitHub repo up, but I’d recommend using
> Cisco’s version going forward.  It’s been fun!  😊
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail  for
> Windows 10
>
>
> ___
> 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