It could be, I had not found that one. Thanks Nate!
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 9:26 PM, NateCCIE wrote:
> CSCur34011? (not for the VPN but for the network connectivity for the PC)
>
> -Original Message-
> From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
> Charles G
CSCur34011? (not for the VPN but for the network connectivity for the PC)
-Original Message-
From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
Charles Goldsmith
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 9:13 PM
To: Jonathan Charles
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re:
What's your MTU over the backup VPN? I've seen odd issues on some
networks with different providers and MTU and fragmenting packets
always caused issues until the MSS was set.
I'm not sure why this would affect the 8851's, but we've noticed some
other oddities with the 8851's. For instance, comp
Will end users notice any difference if we change the im&p service default
domain other than the interruption while making the change?
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
No secure; the phone works fine when the MPLS is up... this doesn't make
sense to me.
Jonathan
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 8:22 PM, Ryan Huff wrote:
> Could also be a CTL issue if your doing secure ...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ryan
>
>
> Original Message
> From: Ryan Huff
> Sent: Thursd
To clarify, I am referring to those maintenance part numbers which have
nothing about duration in the part number nor the description. E.g., The
ones for CUWL
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 6:26 PM Anthony Holloway <
avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Have any of you fine pre-sales folks had iss
Could also be a CTL issue if your doing secure ...
Thanks,
Ryan
Original Message
From: Ryan Huff
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 08:48 PM
To: Jonathan Charles
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Cisco 8851 not failing over to backup circuit...
CC: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>What load
Thanks for your insight on this. Do you have an idea of why the 99% mistake
rate happens when CCW is used? Which by the way is exactly what was used in
my scenario which prompted this email.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 7:36 PM Mike Olivere wrote:
> If you create your quotes in CSCC then disti should
What load on the 51s and is that load version present on all nodes?
Thanks,
Ryan
Original Message
From: Jonathan Charles
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 08:44 PM
To: Ryan Huff
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Cisco 8851 not failing over to backup circuit...
CC: cisco-voip@puck.nether
Settings are identical... I have no idea why only the 8831 is registering
and the 8851s aren't...
Jonathan
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Ryan Huff wrote:
> Same ccm group/device pool etc?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ryan
>
>
> Original Message
> From: Jonathan Charles
> Sent: T
Same ccm group/device pool etc?
Thanks,
Ryan
Original Message
From: Jonathan Charles
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 08:35 PM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-voip] Cisco 8851 not failing over to backup circuit...
>We have CUCM 8.6.2 with Cisco 8851, Cisco 8
If you create your quotes in CSCC then disti should just price that quote (it
will have MY discount). If you create your quotes in CCW then disti will screw
it up 99% of the time.
From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
Anthony Holloway
Sent: Thursday, April
We have CUCM 8.6.2 with Cisco 8851, Cisco 8831 phones at a remote location;
they are connected over MPLS and a Peplink Balance VPN as a backup.
When we yank the MPLS, the 8831 registers with CUCM and works fine the
8851s do NOT.
Any reason the 8851 would act differently?
Jonathan
Have any of you fine pre-sales folks had issues ordering multi-year
SmartNet and the disti giving you final pricing on the wrong duration?
E.g., You quote out 5 years, and disti changes it to 1 year.
If so, can you share you experiences?
Thanks.
___
cis
Confirmed! This fixed my slowness in Jabber 10.6(2) on Win8.1. Thanks!
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 7:40 AM wrote:
> I haven't personally seen this, but did see this possibly related bug:
>
> https://tools.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCuu02593
>
> Symptom:
> Slow response 3-5 seconds entering chat
>
>
Oh, I missed that part completely.
On 2015-04-23 13:50, Rasim Duric wrote:
Thank you again Gentoo. There is a slight miscommunication here, my
two servers are not in a Unity Connection cluster. These are
independent servers, a CUC digital networking is established though.
Rasim Duric
Network
Thank you again Gentoo. There is a slight miscommunication here, my two servers
are not in a Unity Connection cluster. These are independent servers, a CUC
digital networking is established though.
Rasim Duric
Network analyst, Network Infrastructure
Computing and Communications Services (CCS
This is the bug and is very useful as it contains the resolution
(requires root): https://tools.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCta76014
Here is the process for physical to physical the process should be the
same as replacing a CUC pub/sub from the CUC docs. If you go the VM
route you will need a v
Thank you Gentoo. This is very useful. Our plan is to test and perform the
upgrades in an off-line network. Once all is done, shut-down the existing v7.x
servers and re-connect the upgraded v9.x servers on-line. In this case we would
have a short downtime.
It would be great if you could find mo
Its also possible to do this without COBRAS or DRS.
Basically you just replace each node one at a time on the current
version but running on the new HW.
Once you have the current version running on the new hardware you
upgrade as usual. (Don't forget to get your 7.x licenses ahead of time
fo
Well, that was the problem!! i removed it and it works as good as new :-D
Once more, this forum was quicker that the TAC to spot it and solve my
problem!
I still have no answer from my engineer...
Thanks all,
BR
Antonis
On 23-Apr-15 15:42, Antonis Kouloglou wrote:
Hi,
thanks! TAC has not yet
Hi,
thanks! TAC has not yet replied to me but it must be this.
There is also a thread open.
https://supportforums.cisco.com/discussion/12483946/jabber-chat-lag
BR
Antonis
On 23-Apr-15 15:39, gen...@ucpenguin.com wrote:
I haven't personally seen this, but did see this possibly related bug:
htt
I haven't personally seen this, but did see this possibly related bug:
https://tools.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCuu02593
Symptom:
Slow response 3-5 seconds entering chat
Conditions:
Jabber 10.x with KB3038314 installed.
Workaround:
remove KB3038314
On 2015-04-21 04:57, Antonis Kouloglou wrote
23 matches
Mail list logo
