Re: [cisco-voip] UC 11.5(1)SU5
SU5a dropped for CUP. On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 10:25 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi wrote: > Looks like su5 is still up. > > *-sent from mobile device-* > > > *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst > > Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph > > Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON | > N1G 2W1 > > 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 <519-824-4120;56354> | le...@uoguelph.ca > > > > www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook > > > > [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline] > > On Jun 29, 2018, at 11:42 AM, Tim Frazee wrote: > > published evening of 6/28, however I've heard that there's a critical > issue and to not use it yet. perhaps a SU5a coming soon. not sure which > product has the issue. > > -- > -Tim Frazee > > ___ > cisco-voip mailing list > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip > > -- -Tim Frazee t...@frazeefamily.net 314.467.0076 ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
[cisco-voip] UC 11.5(1)SU5
published evening of 6/28, however I've heard that there's a critical issue and to not use it yet. perhaps a SU5a coming soon. not sure which product has the issue. -- -Tim Frazee ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
[cisco-voip] Cisco Voice Operating System-Based Products Unauthorized Access Vulnerability
heads up https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20171115-vos ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] how long to let expressway updates bake
sitting on 8.9.2 until we go with 11.5(1)SU3, which we'll then go to .10 On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 3:16 AM, Matt Jacobson wrote: > Hi all, > > Has anyone moved to X8.10.0? I heard .1 is a little further away than > expected. I'm curious to see if anyone has taken the plunge. This > particular cluster does not run MRA, but it does have Jabber Guest and B2B > calls running across it with over 500 registrations on the Exp-C. > > Thanks > > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi > wrote: > >> **phew** >> >> >> >> --- >> >> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A. >> >> Senior Analyst, Network Infrastructure >> >> Computing and Communications Services (CCS) >> >> University of Guelph >> >> >> >> 519-824-4120 Ext 56354 <(519)%20824-4120> >> >> le...@uoguelph.ca >> >> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs >> >> Room 037, Animal Science and Nutrition Building >> >> Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1 >> >> >> >> *From:* Ryan Huff [mailto:ryanh...@outlook.com] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 18, 2017 12:10 PM >> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi >> *Cc:* Tim Frazee; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net >> >> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] how long to let expressway updates bake >> >> >> >> I'm talking about the remote screen sharing features :). >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> On Jul 18, 2017, at 12:05 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi wrote: >> >> What? Jabber MRA not working in Expressway 8.8+ >> >> >> >> Wasn’t that the primary reason for expressway? Eek. >> >> >> >> Is this in the release notes? >> >> >> >> --- >> >> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A. >> >> Senior Analyst, Network Infrastructure >> >> Computing and Communications Services (CCS) >> >> University of Guelph >> >> >> >> 519-824-4120 Ext 56354 <(519)%20824-4120> >> >> le...@uoguelph.ca >> >> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs >> >> Room 037, Animal Science and Nutrition Building >> >> Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1 >> >> >> >> *From:* cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net >> ] *On Behalf Of *Ryan Huff >> *Sent:* Monday, July 17, 2017 3:28 PM >> *To:* Tim Frazee >> *Cc:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net >> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] how long to let expressway updates bake >> >> >> >> I'd personally say anything 8.8+ is good 2 go and it's mostly still just >> the Jabber stuff that doesn't work over MRA (which is documented). >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> On Jul 17, 2017, at 3:20 PM, Tim Frazee wrote: >> >> When I say "sit" would be how long do I let other Cisco customers find >> any serious issues before I would hop on. Wait for the "a" revision to >> drop. was typical back in the day. not sure if expressway had the same >> history. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Ryan Huff wrote: >> >> Not sure what you're referring to by "sit"? Are you referring to a >> hardware burn-in of the host chassis the guest VM is running on? >> >> During the non-production period, is the business using it to validate >> its configuration and usability for its specified business case? Usually, >> once UAT (User Acceptance Testing) is completed and signed off on I would >> kick it in to production during a scheduled window. >> >> For chassis burn-in, I like to see a week in the production racks. >> >> Thanks, >> >> -Ryan >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> > On Jul 17, 2017, at 10:32 AM, Tim Frazee wrote: >> > >> > Hi >> > >> > new to the expressway suite and was wondering whats the average wait >> time (if any) for new versions of expressway to sit before you consider >> them production worthy. >> > >> > for ucm/cup/cuc, I usually give it no more than a month before I would >> consider it "stable" but was interested in what this group tends to lean to. >> >> > ___ >> > cisco-voip mailing list >> > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net >> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> cisco-voip mailing list >> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip >> >> > > ___ > cisco-voip mailing list > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip > > ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
[cisco-voip] ntp sources quantity
whats the group's opinion or best practice for setting ntp sources in Cisco UC apps? typically, 3 is what I like to set. 1 or 2 to the customer environment and 2 or 1 to the "public internet" (ntp.org for sure) ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] how long to let expressway updates bake
8.10 dropped and was wondering how fast people typically start planning for upgrades. personally I'm waiting for 11.5(1)su3 to drop and sit for a bit before i'd bother with 8.10, but just wanted to get the temp of the group. On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Ryan Huff wrote: > I'd personally say anything 8.8+ is good 2 go and it's mostly still just > the Jabber stuff that doesn't work over MRA (which is documented). > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 17, 2017, at 3:20 PM, Tim Frazee wrote: > > When I say "sit" would be how long do I let other Cisco customers find any > serious issues before I would hop on. Wait for the "a" revision to drop. > was typical back in the day. not sure if expressway had the same history. > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Ryan Huff wrote: > >> Not sure what you're referring to by "sit"? Are you referring to a >> hardware burn-in of the host chassis the guest VM is running on? >> >> During the non-production period, is the business using it to validate >> its configuration and usability for its specified business case? Usually, >> once UAT (User Acceptance Testing) is completed and signed off on I would >> kick it in to production during a scheduled window. >> >> For chassis burn-in, I like to see a week in the production racks. >> >> Thanks, >> >> -Ryan >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> > On Jul 17, 2017, at 10:32 AM, Tim Frazee wrote: >> > >> > Hi >> > >> > new to the expressway suite and was wondering whats the average wait >> time (if any) for new versions of expressway to sit before you consider >> them production worthy. >> > >> > for ucm/cup/cuc, I usually give it no more than a month before I would >> consider it "stable" but was interested in what this group tends to lean to. >> > ___ >> > 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] how long to let expressway updates bake
When I say "sit" would be how long do I let other Cisco customers find any serious issues before I would hop on. Wait for the "a" revision to drop. was typical back in the day. not sure if expressway had the same history. On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Ryan Huff wrote: > Not sure what you're referring to by "sit"? Are you referring to a > hardware burn-in of the host chassis the guest VM is running on? > > During the non-production period, is the business using it to validate its > configuration and usability for its specified business case? Usually, once > UAT (User Acceptance Testing) is completed and signed off on I would kick > it in to production during a scheduled window. > > For chassis burn-in, I like to see a week in the production racks. > > Thanks, > > -Ryan > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Jul 17, 2017, at 10:32 AM, Tim Frazee wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > new to the expressway suite and was wondering whats the average wait > time (if any) for new versions of expressway to sit before you consider > them production worthy. > > > > for ucm/cup/cuc, I usually give it no more than a month before I would > consider it "stable" but was interested in what this group tends to lean to. > > ___ > > 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] how long to let expressway updates bake
Hi new to the expressway suite and was wondering whats the average wait time (if any) for new versions of expressway to sit before you consider them production worthy. for ucm/cup/cuc, I usually give it no more than a month before I would consider it "stable" but was interested in what this group tends to lean to. ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] Cisco CUCM11.5 reviews
solid. we have deployed it 20+ instances from our HCS to onsite. SU3 drops soonish On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:49 AM, cisco.voip wrote: > All, has anyone gone with 11.5.1su2 yet? I am having nothing but problems > since upgrading from 10.5.2su4. > I se that they deferred 11.5.1, so I don't have alot of confidence that > 11.5.1su2 is stable. > Let me know, thanks management is breaking my back on getting upgrade for > security reasoning. > ___ > 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] openldap for ucm/cuc
anyone using openldap or apacheDS for directories instead of the de-facto active directory? ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] jabber avatar photo management
agreed. good thoughts by all. we have some smart guys that might be able to build something out internal, just wanted to know if anyone had thought of this already and had something. On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Brian Meade wrote: > There would still probably need to be some sort of admin approval involved > to keep inappropriate pictures off of there. > > This sounds like it would be a pretty easy front-end webpage to make. > Authenticate users with UDS API then allow them to upload a picture which > gets saves as userid.png in the root directory. > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi wrote: > >> >> The http server is the easy part. The avatar management is the hard part. >> Unless you want it to be driving by an admin team. Which works, but users >> like to do things themselves. >> >> >> Lelio >> >> >> >> --- >> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A. >> Senior Analyst, Network Infrastructure >> Computing and Communications Services (CCS) >> University of Guelph >> >> 519-824-4120 Ext 56354 >> le...@uoguelph.ca >> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs >> Room 037, Animal Science and Nutrition Building >> Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1 >> >> >> >> -- >> *From:* cisco-voip on behalf of >> Brian Meade >> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 28, 2016 3:15 PM >> *To:* Tim Frazee >> *Cc:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net >> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] jabber avatar photo management >> >> So you don't have an HTTP server to host the files at all now? You would >> need that either way but just a front-end to update the pictures and >> authenticate users. >> >> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Tim Frazee wrote: >> >>> does anyone have any ideas/tips to manage the avatar photos that jabber >>> clients use? >>> >>> i'm looking for a standalone process (auth against callmanager would be >>> nice) that would allow a user to login and set/change the avatar photo for >>> themselves. >>> >>> many/most of our customers dont have active directory or the method to >>> pull those photos out and publish to a http server. >>> >>> any ideas? >>> >>> ___ >>> 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] jabber avatar photo management
does anyone have any ideas/tips to manage the avatar photos that jabber clients use? i'm looking for a standalone process (auth against callmanager would be nice) that would allow a user to login and set/change the avatar photo for themselves. many/most of our customers dont have active directory or the method to pull those photos out and publish to a http server. any ideas? ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] DX70/80 Bug
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Michael Voity wrote: > Hello, > > > > I found this bug on the DX70 / 80 > > > > Bug id: CSCuy20490 > > Bug headline: DX70/80 Keyboard Missing ">" "<" Characters > > > > https://tools.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/%20CSCuy20490 > > > > -Mike > > > > > > -- > > Michael T. Voity > > Network Engineer > > University of Vermont > > > > ___ > 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] Bulk ITL Eraser...
We ran into the same problem. The current version of the tool didnt touch the 88xx series phones with ITL issues. UnifiedFX got a beta version over quickly and it wrapped it up. On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Jonathan Charles wrote: > I called TAC, we used their ITL tool, and, well, it is kinda terrible... > slow, lots of underlying dependencies that stop working... UnifiedFX came > thru and issues me the license mods on my purchase and cleared the ITLs in > a few minutes... (it took a few passes, but it was completely painless)... > We had three phones it couldn't fix, but a factory reset on 3 was MUCH > better than on 1200. > > UnifiedFX support got back to me at 0328AM (I was worried that they were a > 9-5 shop... they aren't) and the ITL issues were gone by 0440... (the > initial scan took longer than the fix)... > > > This was after working with TAC for 4 hours and only fixing like 20. > > > > Jonathan > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Ryan Ratliff (rratliff) < > rratl...@cisco.com> wrote: > >> If you regenerated certs to get into this state and don’t have an >> ITLRecovery cert present there is a process TAC can use to use your old >> cert to update the phones. >> If you have an ITLRecovery cert already (and the phones have an ITL with >> it included) then just use that. >> >> Either way I’d recommend this for your path forward. >> 1) Grab your towel >> 2) Don’t panic >> 3) Call TAC >> >> -Ryan >> >> On Jan 19, 2016, at 3:11 AM, Jonathan Charles wrote: >> >> I actually bought the $499 ITL eraser, but it won't connect to the >> cluster because it is over 3000 phones... and there doesn't appear to be a >> way to order a bigger one online... >> >> >> >> Jonathan >> >> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Stephen Welsh < >> stephen.we...@unifiedfx.com> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Brian, >>> >>> Given it’s for a bank, I guess you may want to ensure it is CUCM >>> Compatible? >>> >>> PhoneView from UnifiedFX (http://www.unifiedfx.com) is the only IVT >>> Tested application that performs Bulk delete of ITL Files (as well as full >>> endpoint management too). >>> >>> Also, >>> PhoneView was the first application to delete ITL Files in bulk and >>> bypass the phones web server by using CTI. As an example, of one our >>> clients (a large domestic US bank) managed to delete 52,000 ITL Files in a >>> single 4 hour change window. >>> >>> Stephen Welsh >>> CTO >>> >>> >>> >>> On 18 Jan 2016, at 19:36, Brian Meade wrote: >>> >>> Unified FX is the one I've heard the most success with- >>> http://www.unifiedfx.com/itl-delete/ >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Jonathan Charles >>> wrote: >>> Yeah, web access is a no no, the place is a bank... how much do the other companies charge for their software? Jonathan On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Brian Meade wrote: > It's very basic and only used in emergencies. You must have already > had web access enabled on the phones and the phones must already have had > a > proper authentication URL. You need the IP addresses of all your IP > phones. It sends button presses one by one with one phone at a time so > takes a very long time for large clusters. > > The tools made by 3rd party companies for this task are much more > efficient at this. > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Jonathan Charles > wrote: > >> I saw on a forum posting >> >> >> https://supportforums.cisco.com/document/60716/migrating-ip-phones-between-clusters-cucm-8-and-itl-files >> >> That TAC has a bulk ITL eraser... does anyone know anything about it? >> >> >> >> Jonathan >> >> ___ >> cisco-voip mailing list >> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip >> >> > >>> ___ >>> cisco-voip mailing list >>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip >>> >>> >>> >> ___ >> cisco-voip mailing list >> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip >> >> > > ___ > cisco-voip mailing list > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip > > ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] Common Partition Space Issue - Upgrade CUCM from 9.6 to 11.x
the 13 node cluster upgrade from 9x to 10x that I performed would disagree. But ok. On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 1:32 AM, Alessandro Bertacco < bertacco.alessan...@alice.it> wrote: > Hi Tim, this is a Major Upgrade, the ISO image is about 5GB, and so, > changing only the watermark of the logging partition is not enough for a > vDisk of 80GB. > > > > > > > > *Da:* Tim Frazee [mailto:tfra...@gmail.com] > *Inviato:* lunedì 11 gennaio 2016 17:30 > *A:* Alessandro Bertacco > *Cc:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net > *Oggetto:* Re: [cisco-voip] Common Partition Space Issue - Upgrade CUCM > from 9.6 to 11.x > > > > what size image are you using? Depending on which, the reallocation cop > file might not gain you much usable space. > > instead of the free_common_space cop file, I crank the low and high water > mark for the logging partition and give it a while to clean up. it's one > less cop file to install and solves the problem. we've done it on > everything from a small, 2.5k image to a 10k image. works everytime. > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 4:24 AM, Alessandro Bertacco < > bertacco.alessan...@alice.it> wrote: > > > > Hi Guys, > >I’m planning to upgrade our CUCM cluster from version 9.6 to version > 11.00, and I’ve some questions for you. > > > > Version 9.x has the bug of the limited Common Partition Space, so Upgrade > fails. > > > > I’ve read Upgrade document downloaded from Cisco Site, and I’ve noticed > that Cisco recommend to use two different Cop files to solve the Common > Partition Space requirements issue. > > > > First: ciscocm.free_common_space_v1.3.k3.cop.sgn, to delete the ISO > inactive image on the Common partition > > > > Second: ciscocm.vmware-disk-size-reallocation-1.0.cop.sgn, to expand and > relocate the Common Partition Space on the Virtual Disk. > > > > The question is, anyone as already done one or all the procedure listed > above? > > > > Some recommendations? > > > > Thank you very much and have a nice day. > > > > Alessandro Bertacco > > Network & Voice Engineer > > Lan Service S.r.l. > > > > > > > > > > > ___ > 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] Common Partition Space Issue - Upgrade CUCM from 9.6 to 11.x
what size image are you using? Depending on which, the reallocation cop file might not gain you much usable space. instead of the free_common_space cop file, I crank the low and high water mark for the logging partition and give it a while to clean up. it's one less cop file to install and solves the problem. we've done it on everything from a small, 2.5k image to a 10k image. works everytime. On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 4:24 AM, Alessandro Bertacco < bertacco.alessan...@alice.it> wrote: > > > Hi Guys, > >I’m planning to upgrade our CUCM cluster from version 9.6 to version > 11.00, and I’ve some questions for you. > > > > Version 9.x has the bug of the limited Common Partition Space, so Upgrade > fails. > > > > I’ve read Upgrade document downloaded from Cisco Site, and I’ve noticed > that Cisco recommend to use two different Cop files to solve the Common > Partition Space requirements issue. > > > > First: ciscocm.free_common_space_v1.3.k3.cop.sgn, to delete the ISO > inactive image on the Common partition > > > > Second: ciscocm.vmware-disk-size-reallocation-1.0.cop.sgn, to expand and > relocate the Common Partition Space on the Virtual Disk. > > > > The question is, anyone as already done one or all the procedure listed > above? > > > > Some recommendations? > > > > Thank you very much and have a nice day. > > > > Alessandro Bertacco > > Network & Voice Engineer > > Lan Service S.r.l. > > > > > > > > > > ___ > 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] Recommendations Admin Phone
second this. the 7861 would support it as well but might require a device pack to light it up in 8.0. the 7931 would be baked in easily. On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 8:36 AM, James Buchanan wrote: > Going real old school, but the 7931 was great for this. > > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 9:33 AM, David Zhars wrote: > >> UCM 8.0 and Unity 8.0 >> >> New Admin Asst, wants a phone that isn't too big, but would let her >> monitor ten extensions. Just easily see who is on the phone and who isn't. >> >> Ideas? Don't really like the sidecar options, they look clunky! >> >> Dave >> >> ___ >> 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] Opinions on 10.5(2) SU2 ?
SU2a dropped on the 14th. On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Ryan Ratliff (rratliff) wrote: > As far as I'm aware any respin would only contain those two fixes. > > -Ryan > > On Jul 10, 2015, at 5:23 PM, Charles Goldsmith > wrote: > > I have one customer on SU2, but it's smaller (around 250 phones) and we > have not had any issues as you describe. > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Justin Steinberg > wrote: > >> Anyone running this version in production ? >> >> I saw a COP file was released this week addressing three SIP bugs that >> unregister the phones (CM crash?). >> >> >> http://www.cisco.com/web/software/282204704/18582/ciscocm.FQDNwithDNS-v1.0.k3.readme.pdf >> >> Any of the Cisco guys know whether this is going to cause a SU2 respin >> ?I'm running into BAT issues wiht 10.5(2) SU1 and would hate to apply >> SU2+COP if there is a SU2a coming soon. >> >> Justin >> >> ___ >> cisco-voip mailing list >> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip >> >> > ___ > cisco-voip mailing list > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip > > > ___ > cisco-voip mailing list > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip > > ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
[cisco-voip] monitoring jabber usage
Group, has anyone run across a way to graph/track/monitor concurrent logged in jabber clients? not watching CSF registered devices, but tracking how many folks are using jabber regardless of softphone or desktop control. mostly looking for 9x and 10x versions of IM&P. thanks ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] (no subject)
I would agree. you cant take a 2.5k template and grow it out to a 10k user template and get the same result. partA and partB are not going to grow. On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Justin Steinberg wrote: > So we all agree that expanding an existing vdisk isn't the same as > installing from a larger OVA template. > > That being said, the documentation about multiple vdisk systems seems to > no longer apply. Starting with the 9.1 OVA templates, even the 10k user > template is a single 1x110GB disk. 9.0 was the last CM OVA template > version to have 2x80GB vdisk config for the 7500 and 10k user templates. > > Does anyone know whether there are any other settings such as DB > performance settings that are different between OVA templates, or is it > just simply vCPU, vRAM, vDISK size. If it is just the vDisk size, I'm > leading towards staying on my current expanded vdisk template until a time > in the future where the active/user partition needs to be larger to > accommodate a newer software version. > > Justin > > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Anthony Holloway < > avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Ryan, you replied to Tim, but I think Justin is the one who really needs >> to read your reply. His method to move from one OVA to the next may not >> have resulted in what he expected. >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 12:45 PM Ryan Ratliff (rratliff) < >> rratl...@cisco.com> wrote: >> >>> It’s expected that only the common partition grows if you expand the >>> vDisk. The feature is there because some versions of UCM require more >>> space available in that partition than others. >>> >>> >>> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/upgrade/10_0_1/CUCM_BK_U4214F9D_00_upgrade-guide-cucm-100/CUCM_BK_U4214F9D_00_upgrade-guide-cucm-100_chapter_011.html#CUCM_TK_C9AFC8CC_00 >>> >>> You need to change the disk size changes only if you need additional >>> space to complete the upgrade. The disk space requirements are specified in >>> the Readme file for the OVA template. >>> >>> Expanding the disk size to add space to the common partition will not >>> increase the user capacity of your system. If you need to extend the user >>> capacity of your system, you must migrate from a single-disk to a >>> multi-disk virtual machine >>> >>> So if you really need to go from a 2500 user deployment to a 7500 user >>> one you should DRS, rebuild, restore so your active and inactive partitions >>> get sized accordingly. >>> >>> -Ryan >>> >>> On Mar 23, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Tim Frazee wrote: >>> >>> unknown. installer still does a hardware check. >>> >>> while testing my moh problem, I used an 8.6 ova to deploy the old 10k >>> template, made the one OS tweak to the image, then installed 10.5(2) on it. >>> successful install. >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 9:43 AM, NateCCIE . wrote: >>> >>>> I wonder what the difference is between expanding and installing on >>>> 120G from the beginning, since there is the report of it only growing the >>>> common partition. >>>> >>>> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Tim Frazee wrote: >>>> >>>>> the resize cop file is for 9x only, 10 has it built in. I'm running >>>>> around with a tac case to address a stock 9x or 10x 7.5 to 10k user build >>>>> that results with a 110G disk. doesn't leave much space for those 500 moh >>>>> sources. >>>>> >>>>> if you shut the image down and increase from 110 to at least 112G, >>>>> the boot process grows the common partition out. >>>>> >>>>> as a standard, any of our 10x installs for large clients, we are >>>>> growing the disk out to 120G just to be safe. >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Erick wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The VMware disk reallocation worked for us also going from 80gig >>>>>> to 110gig for 10.5. Were on. 9.1 prior. >>>>>> >>>>>> The readme in the download link Is pretty good but doesn't say >>>>>> outright what to increase it to. >>>>>> >>>>>> High level steps , >>>>>> >>>>>> Make sure you have a good backup >>>>>> >>>>>> Install the cop file >>>>>> Shutdown the vm >>>>&
Re: [cisco-voip] (no subject)
unknown. installer still does a hardware check. while testing my moh problem, I used an 8.6 ova to deploy the old 10k template, made the one OS tweak to the image, then installed 10.5(2) on it. successful install. On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 9:43 AM, NateCCIE . wrote: > I wonder what the difference is between expanding and installing on 120G > from the beginning, since there is the report of it only growing the common > partition. > > On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Tim Frazee wrote: > >> the resize cop file is for 9x only, 10 has it built in. I'm running >> around with a tac case to address a stock 9x or 10x 7.5 to 10k user build >> that results with a 110G disk. doesn't leave much space for those 500 moh >> sources. >> >> if you shut the image down and increase from 110 to at least 112G, the >> boot process grows the common partition out. >> >> as a standard, any of our 10x installs for large clients, we are growing >> the disk out to 120G just to be safe. >> >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Erick wrote: >> >>> The VMware disk reallocation worked for us also going from 80gig to >>> 110gig for 10.5. Were on. 9.1 prior. >>> >>> The readme in the download link Is pretty good but doesn't say outright >>> what to increase it to. >>> >>> High level steps , >>> >>> Make sure you have a good backup >>> >>> Install the cop file >>> Shutdown the vm >>> Change virtual disk from 80G to 110G >>> Save /OK settings >>> Power on VM >>> >>> It will reboot a few times while extending disk then come up fine / >>> normal . >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Mar 20, 2015, at 9:34 AM, Justin Steinberg >>> wrote: >>> >>> So in the CUCM 10.5 download section for the Utilities, it seems to have >>> combined the common cleanup COP file and the VMware Disk Size Reallocation. >>> >>> There is a COP file title '*VMware Disk Size Reallocation COP file' *but >>> the actual file is *ciscocm.free_common_space_v1.3.k3.cop.sgn* >>> >>> The actual reallocation cop file isn't part of the CUCM 10.5 download, I >>> had to go back into an older version to file that COP. So that is why I >>> was thinking in 10.5 all you would need to do is change the size of the >>> vDisk in VMware and restart CUCM 10.5. >>> >>> Is there an official document on the process to follow for this change ? >>> >>> Justin >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Roger Wiklund >> > wrote: >>> >>>> I have. >>>> >>>> Went from 2500 to 7500 on CUCM 10.5(1). >>>> >>>> You need to download the VMware Disk Size Reallocation COP file for >>>> 10.5. Worked like a charm. >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.cisco.com/web/software/282204704/18582/CleanupCommonCOPfilev1.3.pdf >>>> >>>> http://www.cisco.com/web/software/282204704/18582/ciscocm.vmware_disk_size_reallocation_v1.0.pdf >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Justin Steinberg >>>> wrote: >>>> > Has anyone successfully expanded the virtual disk size of CUCM VMs >>>> without >>>> > rebuild/DRS? >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > I have an install where CM 10.5 is using the 2500 user template and >>>> we want >>>> > to increase to 7500 users. The 2500 OVA is 1 vCPU, 4GB, 1x80GB. >>>> The 7500 >>>> > OVA is 2vCPU, 6 GB, 1x110GB.In the past, the older 7500 user CM >>>> versions >>>> > had two virtual 80 GB disks, however since 9.1 the 7500 user is a >>>> single 110 >>>> > GB disk. It seems like with a single virtual disk it would be >>>> easier to >>>> > expand an existing VM without rebuild. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > There are several bugs on the topic: >>>> > >>>> > https://tools.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCug63058 >>>> > >>>> > https://tools.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCuc58936 >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > In older CM versions there was a COP file to assist with allowing the >>>> VM to >>>> > use more disk when the vdisk was increased. However, now I believe >>>>
Re: [cisco-voip] (no subject)
the resize cop file is for 9x only, 10 has it built in. I'm running around with a tac case to address a stock 9x or 10x 7.5 to 10k user build that results with a 110G disk. doesn't leave much space for those 500 moh sources. if you shut the image down and increase from 110 to at least 112G, the boot process grows the common partition out. as a standard, any of our 10x installs for large clients, we are growing the disk out to 120G just to be safe. On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Erick wrote: > The VMware disk reallocation worked for us also going from 80gig to > 110gig for 10.5. Were on. 9.1 prior. > > The readme in the download link Is pretty good but doesn't say outright > what to increase it to. > > High level steps , > > Make sure you have a good backup > > Install the cop file > Shutdown the vm > Change virtual disk from 80G to 110G > Save /OK settings > Power on VM > > It will reboot a few times while extending disk then come up fine / normal > . > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Mar 20, 2015, at 9:34 AM, Justin Steinberg > wrote: > > So in the CUCM 10.5 download section for the Utilities, it seems to have > combined the common cleanup COP file and the VMware Disk Size Reallocation. > > There is a COP file title '*VMware Disk Size Reallocation COP file' *but > the actual file is *ciscocm.free_common_space_v1.3.k3.cop.sgn* > > The actual reallocation cop file isn't part of the CUCM 10.5 download, I > had to go back into an older version to file that COP. So that is why I > was thinking in 10.5 all you would need to do is change the size of the > vDisk in VMware and restart CUCM 10.5. > > Is there an official document on the process to follow for this change ? > > Justin > > > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Roger Wiklund > wrote: > >> I have. >> >> Went from 2500 to 7500 on CUCM 10.5(1). >> >> You need to download the VMware Disk Size Reallocation COP file for >> 10.5. Worked like a charm. >> >> >> http://www.cisco.com/web/software/282204704/18582/CleanupCommonCOPfilev1.3.pdf >> >> http://www.cisco.com/web/software/282204704/18582/ciscocm.vmware_disk_size_reallocation_v1.0.pdf >> >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Justin Steinberg >> wrote: >> > Has anyone successfully expanded the virtual disk size of CUCM VMs >> without >> > rebuild/DRS? >> > >> > >> > >> > I have an install where CM 10.5 is using the 2500 user template and we >> want >> > to increase to 7500 users. The 2500 OVA is 1 vCPU, 4GB, 1x80GB.The >> 7500 >> > OVA is 2vCPU, 6 GB, 1x110GB.In the past, the older 7500 user CM >> versions >> > had two virtual 80 GB disks, however since 9.1 the 7500 user is a >> single 110 >> > GB disk. It seems like with a single virtual disk it would be easier >> to >> > expand an existing VM without rebuild. >> > >> > >> > >> > There are several bugs on the topic: >> > >> > https://tools.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCug63058 >> > >> > https://tools.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCuc58936 >> > >> > >> > >> > In older CM versions there was a COP file to assist with allowing the >> VM to >> > use more disk when the vdisk was increased. However, now I believe >> that it >> > is just built in to CM to use more disk on reboots if it detects a vdisk >> > change instead of needing to run the OVA. >> > >> > >> > >> > There is still conflicting documentation on the topic, so I will >> probably >> > open a TAC case but curious if anyone has dealt with this before? >> > >> > >> > Justin >> > >> > >> > ___ >> > cisco-voip mailing list >> > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net >> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip >> > >> > > ___ > cisco-voip mailing list > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip > > > ___ > cisco-voip mailing list > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip > > ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
[cisco-voip] Unity Connection Voice Enabled Directory Handler Alternatives
Group, I have a large client who has pointed out one Unity Connection feature that tends to be very popular doesnt scale to their size. We have a lot of clients who use Cisco's UC solution. They all have Unity Connection. Most clients are <200 users per UC system. We configure a Voice Directory as voice enabled and present that to internal users only (not accessible from the PSTN) as a simple, Voice Directory. Some clients like a default speed dial on each phone labeled as "Voice Directory". You press it, and ask for "Bob Smith". Unity will then transfer the caller to Unity subscriber according to the configured transfer rules. Most of the time, this rings out to the ip phone. If SNR or CFWD is setup, it goes there. Its a great feature and works very well. Easy to setup. Unfortunately, when you enable the "voice enabled" option on the directory handler, you lose the ability to control the search scope based on an scalable mechanism. What would work well is being able to build a dedicated distrubution list and set it as the search scope. That way if you have more than 2 "Bob Smiths" you can limit it to the site/region that makes sense. The old Speech Connect product was great. Upload a CSV of the search scope per directory, its done. Does anyone know of a 3rd party product that will integrate into UCM that does speech recognition and will transfer the caller out to a user and will allow for a "per voice directory" search scope so that I can control the what options callers can be transferred out to? I know about UCCX and speech recognition, but would like some options before we go there. ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] Unity Connection and Office 365 for UM
no bright ideas. Didn't perform any calendar integration at this point. On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Gary Parker wrote: > > > On 12 Feb 2015, at 20:49, Tim Frazee wrote: > > > > this page got me up and running. I'm in a hybrid configuration btw > > > > http://community.office365.com/en-us/f/158/t/46953.aspx > > That’s a really good thread Tim, thanks. > > We’re also using a hybrid deployment at our site using Unity Connection > 8.6.2 and the voicemail integration is working great. > > The problem I have, however, is that as our users are migrated (the > process is still ongoing at present) from on-site to off-prem I’ve noticed > that we lose the calendar presence integration, i.e. Jabber no longer shows > a user as being In A Meeting. > > Anyone got any bright ideas for this one? > > > --- > /-Gary Parker--f--\ > | Unified Communications Service Manager | > n Loughborough University IT Services | > | Tel: +441509635635 Mob: +447989172258 o > | http://delphium.lboro.ac.uk/pubkey.txt | > \r--d-/ > > ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] Unity Connection and Office 365 for UM
this page got me up and running. I'm in a hybrid configuration btw http://community.office365.com/en-us/f/158/t/46953.aspx On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Tim Frazee wrote: > Folks, > > I have a CUC 9x and Office 365 Integration coming up soon and I have some > questions for the group: > > reading through the task list that Cisco has for 365 integration is heavy > on the detail of certain steps, but it seems light on other steps. it > appears some assumptions have to be made > > 1. is there any network requirements documented either by Cisco or by > "real world" experience with this setup? I dont see any specific notes > about if I need port-forwarding noted or static NAT configured from CUC out > to 365. Any ideas here? > > 2. 1800 users per 365 service account? delay in operation if we go over it? > > Can anyone share any installation experience? > > My CUC environment is properly configured for DNS and has internet access. > Not sure what else is needed. > ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
[cisco-voip] Unity Connection and Office 365 for UM
Folks, I have a CUC 9x and Office 365 Integration coming up soon and I have some questions for the group: reading through the task list that Cisco has for 365 integration is heavy on the detail of certain steps, but it seems light on other steps. it appears some assumptions have to be made 1. is there any network requirements documented either by Cisco or by "real world" experience with this setup? I dont see any specific notes about if I need port-forwarding noted or static NAT configured from CUC out to 365. Any ideas here? 2. 1800 users per 365 service account? delay in operation if we go over it? Can anyone share any installation experience? My CUC environment is properly configured for DNS and has internet access. Not sure what else is needed. ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
[cisco-voip] dx80 wallpaper resolution
hey all, Anyone have any experience with setting a wallpaper on a DX80? I've gotten how to set the file from UCM all figured out but the issue I'm having is the dimensions of the file itself and how Android interprets the file. Data Sheet says the screen is 1920 x 1080 while the admin guide to make a wallpaper 1600 x 1280. With how Android displays the actual wallpaper, it seems the dimensions need to be something completely different. Some googling shows that the best way to figure the resolution is to double the width since when you slide the screen to the left or to the right, you get 50% of the screen in that new spread. 50+100+50 percent. Anyone ever done this? Am I on the right path? ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] Device pack installation methodology question
Ryan, I perform the task you describe often and depending on the customer, in different ways. I would not suggest only installing a device pack on some servers.. Device packs are meant to be installed on all nodes of the cluster. Its not a best practice, its a great practice. All nodes get all need cop files... The largest client I work with now we started the implementation using lessons learned from past needs like this. The phone load is hard set at each phone vs. leaning on the device defaults. This method works great. It gives me ultimate granularity when it comes to who gets what load and when. If the client wasn't deployed this way, its easy to get there. Bulk update before you need to. If this method doesn't flip your switch, another method I've used in the past is to keep the device defaults page /ccmadmin page open during the device pack install on the publisher. I usually run the cop file installs from ssh. (faster and thinner) Once the device pack has run its course, the device defaults page has not timed out yet. Then you comitt your pre-device-pack parameters back to the db by hitting the save button. (can also export the device defaults before the device pack install, then import back in post device pack install) The last 2 methods will work only if a phone doesnt reset/reboot after the device pack has been installed but before you've set the device defaults back. the first method it wont matter... If all else fails... force your phones into fallback or keep them from registering to the server by an ACL. On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Ryan Huff wrote: > Correct, ordinarily that would be what I would do as well. In this case > though, I am trying to avoid upgrading the firmware on anything, other than > the devices I am trying to get support for. > > Thanks, > > Ryan > > -- > Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2015 14:20:43 -0600 > From: b...@brezworks.com > To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net > Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Device pack installation methodology question > > > On 1/3/2015 2:11 PM, Ryan Huff wrote: > > I need to install a device pack on a 2 node 9.1(2) CCM cluster to get > support for some 88xx phones but I do not want to update the loads for > anything else. > > The approach I am going to use is: > > Drop the publisher out of the CM Group, forcing all phones to the > subscriber. Install the device pack on the publisher and reboot the > publisher. Once the publisher is backup, set all the device defaults back > to what I want them to be then add the publisher back to the CM Group. Then > drop the subscriber from the CM Group forcing all the phones on the > publisher and start the install process over for the subscriber. Once > everything is back up add the subscriber back to the CM Group. > > Does that sound reasonable or is there an easier way? > > > Any time I've needed device support I just install it on all the nodes > then reboot them one at a time during a maintenance window. As long as > both nodes are running call processing, they'll fail over when the node > reboots. Not sure about on 9.X, but on 10.X this just shows as a blip on > the phones of them reregistering, not a full reboot. Obviously if you > install new software for those phones, they'll upgrade software when they > reboot. > > Jeremy "TheBrez" Bresley > b...@brezworks.com > > ___ 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] 10.5(2) is out, 500 moh sources is in
i would imagine it would take a bit till it shows up PUT On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Charles Goldsmith wrote: > > Does anyone know if this will be on PUT for upgrades/installs? IIRC, one > of the VotE briefings mentioned this was going to be a GA build for 10.5.x > > Right now, PUT is giving out 10.5.1 > > Thanks > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Tim Frazee wrote: >> >> probably only significant to large centralized dial tone users. >> >> release notes >> >> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/rel_notes/PCD/10_5_2/CUCM_BK_P2A4DD2C_00_pcd-rns-1052.pdf >> >> ___ >> 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] 10.5(2) is out, 500 moh sources is in
victim of multiple-tab-syndrome….. PCD, aint nobody got time for that — Sent from Mailbox On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Anthony Holloway wrote: > I'm not sure if you meant to link us to the PCD 10.5(2) Release Notes, but > the link for CUCM 10.5(2) Release Notes is below. > http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/rel_notes/10_5_2/CUCM_BK_C6A7E384_00_cucm-release-notes-1052.html > And it would be the New and Changed Features section of the Release Notes > that contains the juicy bits that make you go "Did you hear, CUCM 10.5(2) > now has..." > On Thu Dec 11 2014 at 12:02:50 PM Tim Frazee wrote: >> probably only significant to large centralized dial tone users. >> >> release notes >> >> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/rel_notes/PCD/10_5_2/CUCM_BK_P2A4DD2C_00_pcd-rns-1052.pdf >> ___ >> 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] 10.5(2) is out, 500 moh sources is in
probably only significant to large centralized dial tone users. release notes http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/rel_notes/PCD/10_5_2/CUCM_BK_P2A4DD2C_00_pcd-rns-1052.pdf ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] Unity Connection 8.0.3 to 8.6
I beleive Unity Connection 8.0(3) is supported in vmware. you could install that on your image, perform a restore, fix your licensing, then upgrade to 8.6 in place. OR as Mike suggested, upgrade on MCS to 8.6, get your license happy (which it likely will be since 8.0 to 8.6 is a free upgrade i believe) then DRS from MCS to UCS ive done both methods. it all depends on which method works best with your timelines. On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Mike wrote: > Pat, > > > > This is exactly what I’m looking for > > > > Thanks! > > > > *From:* cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] *On Behalf > Of *Pat Hayes > *Sent:* Thursday, July 03, 2014 5:07 PM > *To:* Mike > *Cc:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net > > *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Unity Connection 8.0.3 to 8.6 > > > > COBRAS can restore to any release greater than or equal to the backed-up > version. It'll capture your users, call handlers, and distribution lists. > It doesn't move system configuration stuff. > > > > As long as you can live with manually configuring that part, it can be a > real headache saver when you have to change both platforms and versions. It > gives you the flexibility to build, configure, and test things in advance > of your cutover. At the cutover, all you have to do is change your pilots > and run the Connection Message Shuttle tool to copy over any messages that > have come in since your backup was taken - way less stress :-) > > > > Check out the COBRAS help file for more specifics on what is/isn't > captured: > > > http://ciscounitytools.com/Applications/General/COBRAS/Help/COBRAS_Briefcase/COBRAS_Briefcase.htm > > > > also, details on the Message Shuttle tool: > > > http://ciscounitytools.com/Applications/CxN/MessageShuttle/MessageShuttle.html > > > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Mike wrote: > > Tim, > > > > We have to do the upgrade , move to VMware and IP address change all in a > small window. > > > > That's why I want to use cobras > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Jul 2, 2014, at 9:26 AM, Tim Smith wrote: > > Hi Mike, > > > > Is it Unity Connection 8.0.3 to Unity Connection 8.6.2(a)? > > Cant you just upgrade it in place? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Tim. > > > > *From: *Mike > *Date: *Wednesday, 2 July 2014 23:22 > *To: *Tim Smith , "cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" < > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net> > *Subject: *RE: [cisco-voip] Unity Connection 8.0.3 to 8.6 > > > > Tim. > > > > I want to jump to 8.6.2(a) with minimal steps and I was hoping I could > export from 8.0.3 and import to 8.6.2(a) is that not possible? > > > > > > Thanks, > > Mike > > > > *From:* cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net > ] *On Behalf Of *Tim Smith > *Sent:* Monday, June 30, 2014 6:02 PM > *To:* Mike O; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net > *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Unity Connection 8.0.3 to 8.6 > > > > Hi Mike, > > > > Just to understand, what are you trying to gain by using COBRAS? > > Maybe a phased migration of users? > > > > Why not just the straight DRS server replacement method below? > > You would only have a small window between when you take backup and when > you get restored version online where voicemails would not be taken. > > > > Is it a HA pair or just single box? > > The other method with HA is to setup a new box and let it replicate. > > > > All the details on the server replacement are here > > > http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/connection/8x/upgrade/guide/8xcucrugx/8xcucrug040.html > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Tim > > > > > > *From:* cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net > ] *On Behalf Of *Mike O > *Sent:* Tuesday, 1 July 2014 12:27 AM > *To:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net > *Subject:* [cisco-voip] Unity Connection 8.0.3 to 8.6 > > > > I have to move from an MCS to UCS in VMware and wondered if I could cut > some steps using Cobras. > > I could build same version in VMware with the same IP address then DRS , > change IP address then upgrade to 8.6. > > With Cobras I should be able to build 8.6 with new IP address on UCS and > then export from 8.0.3 and import to 8.6 > > But..what am I losing using Cobras? > > Thanks, > Mike > > ___ > cisco-voip mailing list > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip > > > ___ > cisco-voip mailing list > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip > > > > ___ > cisco-voip mailing list > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip > > ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
[cisco-voip] feedback for Zenoss to monitor Cisco UC
any positive or negative feedback for using Zenoss to monitor multiple Cisco UC environments ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] Effect of installing device package on Device Defaults
to add to brian's method, What I do for when i need to install device packs or even phone loads, and I dont want to mess with the .cop file changing the defaults, is this 1. start the cop file install via cli or a different browser type. (same browser will look like same session for OS admin) CLI is just easier. 2. just before you start the install of the cop file, with your http browser, goto the device defaults page 3. start the install 4. once the install is complete, press save on the device defaults page. usually the device pack will completely install before the http page times out. pressing F5 will refresh the page and maybe the timer, but it could pull up changes made in the db by the .cop file install. On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Brian Meade wrote: > Fred, > > It will change the device defaults for the other devices. What I would do > is get some screenshots of the current device defaults, run the device pack > install, set the device defaults back to the original settings, then do the > cluster reboot to enable the 8831 support. > > Brian > > > On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Hunt, Frederick > wrote: > >> I’m planning to install device package 8.6(2) (24104-1) on a CUCM >> cluster running 8.6.2, in order to add support for 8831 conference phones. >> I’m trying to determine if installing this device package will change the >> device defaults for devices already supported by the system. From reading >> this document it sounds like it would: >> http://www.cisco.com/web/software/282074299/107528/cmterm-devicepack-8.6.2.24104-1_Readme.pdf. >> Any guidance on what to expect is appreciated. >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> Fred >> >> ___ >> 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] possible solutions to 50 moh source limit with centralized SIP dialtone
has anyone come up with a solution to the 50 moh limit in a single uc cluster? with centralized sip trunks, moh will have to be centralized. (large assumption) I have the need for about 300 different sources. current solution is to build 6 clusters. thoughts? ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
[cisco-voip] LDAP Sync error alert to NMS
group, does anyone know of a snmp trap or syslog event that gets triggered when the dirsync service fails to perform its scheduled action? I have a couple of UCM systems that are monitored with CUOM that have had LDAP sync problems in the past. I'm trying to have something proactive alert operations before the effect ripples through. UCM and CUC 8x, 9x thanks ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] poll: SCCP or SIP integration with large UCM and CUC cluster
True. with SCCP, you can assign capabilities per port. for the record, I was talking about the voicemail integration between UCM and CUC, not end points. I think thats pretty clear which path C is taking. On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi wrote: > I can't be 100% sure, but I like SCCP integrations because you can create > a number of ports groups so you can 'reserve' ports for a particular usage. > For example, if I have 100 ports, I start auto-attendant first, then VM > then call processing. > > Just a thought. > > --- > Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A. > Senior Analyst, Network Infrastructure > Computing and Communications Services (CCS) > University of Guelph > > 519‐824‐4120 Ext 56354 > le...@uoguelph.ca > www.uoguelph.ca/ccs > Room 037, Animal Science and Nutrition Building > Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1 > > -- > *From: *"Tim Frazee" > *To: *cisco-voip@puck.nether.net > *Sent: *Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:10:31 AM > > *Subject: *[cisco-voip] poll: SCCP or SIP integration with large UCM and > CUCcluster > > any opinions either way? > > I've always done SCCP, but I'll have 2x 20k CUC clusters soon and wasnt > sure if there was a better way of doing it. > > ___ > 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] poll: SCCP or SIP integration with large UCM and CUC cluster
any opinions either way? I've always done SCCP, but I'll have 2x 20k CUC clusters soon and wasnt sure if there was a better way of doing it. ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
