Come to think of it... we’d need to know if your 8851s are the pre-v8 hardware
or v8 or above.
V8 they went from class 3 to class 4.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 6, 2020, at 7:33 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi
mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>> wrote:
That would be great.
We’re concerned with out of the box
Ah. Yes. I saw that. Unbroken Link below for those interested.
Issue is, it’s an old doc and has the 8851 listed as class 3.
8851s are now class 4.
IEEE Power over Ethernet class 3 for hardware version prior to V08, class 4 for
hardware version V08 and above. (From Data sheet and other newer
That would be great.
We’re concerned with out of the box 8851s. No side cars. Maybe add a few watts
for USB powering of devices.
We understand that they may request 30w on power up, then revert down to ~15w.
Which means phones may not all come up at once if our power supplies are not
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/collaboration-endpoints/un
ified-ip-phone-6900-series/solution_overview_c22-589129.html
-Original Message-
From: cisco-voip On Behalf Of Lelio
Fulgenzi
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2020 4:12 PM
To: voyp list, cisco-voip
Sure, I can do that for you in the morning.
Check the datasheet on the KEM as well - those draw different power. The A-KEM
is supported with 1 per, BEKEM with 2 (big easy is BE, code name for the model).
If you're running gear with a low budget, "show power inline
detail" tells you what
Does anyone have a bunch of 8851s deployed? Can I trouble you for a "show
inline power" output? I'm looking for what normal operating power draw is for
this model. No side cars, no USB, sort of thing.
I've got an 8865 showing 12.9W, and I'm hoping it's less. We're looking at
selecting 8841 or
Not too mention, Cisco doesn't consistently apply the bootable VS
non-bootable policy to their apps. E.g., IM and UCCX ISOs from CCO are
bootable.
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 12:30 PM Charles Goldsmith wrote:
> I'm 100% beside you, I've yet to see them look at it, just not something
> I'm willing
I'm 100% beside you, I've yet to see them look at it, just not something
I'm willing to risk though.
With the way licensing is these days, the restrictions of bootable ISO
downloads is kinda silly. I see no reason why they restrict it, since if
we really wanted to, we can download the publicly
Totally see your point.
While I guess it may be a possibility, TAC has never, in my experience, come
close to digging that deep to look for an exit from a support request (which is
conceivably why they would look that deep since it poses no functional risk).
In my 20+ years of experience with
Perhaps, less inefficiencies of the tool and rather my disposition. I have
every ISO since 7.5.x. It’s far easier for me to address offline and go, than
to download from eDelivery (which isn’t PUT, but rather a result of the PUT
process), so perhaps misplaced blame..
Sent from my iPhone
On
Agreed, but I've never done this for a customer, and here is my reasoning.
>From my understanding, when you install/upgrade, the md5 of the iso used is
written into the logs or a file on the system. If TAC were so inclined,
they could tell if you installed from valid media or not.
Granted, I've
When last I looked PUT fulfillment was by electronic posting and download in
countries where that is legal. Some geo’s require physical media and the
creates a shipping limitation.
What inefficiency do you experience with PUT?
Thanks,
Wes
On Feb 6, 2020, at 12:17 PM, Ryan Huff
this.
When last I looked:
PUT does create a sales order which helps address any licensing questions,
re-issues, etc.
‘Upgrade’ media isn’t always the same as install media. PUT gets bootable
install media in case of reinstall or disaster.
And PUT doesn’t get the latest SU. PUT gets latest
I can handle the bootable issue far faster and more efficiently than the PUT
process can, which is one of the reasons why I’ve found PUT to not be super
useful to me.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 6, 2020, at 11:33, Pawlowski, Adam wrote:
As far as I know, ordering from PUT creates a sales
*Smacks his head*
Thanks, Anthony
De: Anthony Holloway
Enviado el: jueves, 6 de febrero de 2020 12:45
Para: ROZA, Ariel
CC: cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net)
Asunto: Re: [cisco-voip] [PLM] muliple PAKs and One license request?
You can register more than one PAK at a time, up to 10.
Thanks for the replies, I assumed this was the case, I actually did a PUT
request to try and get the SU2 file but received SU1 instead which is no
help as I am upgrading tomorrow evening?
Looks like i'm good now.
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 16:33, Charles Goldsmith wrote:
> I've had no problem
I've had no problem upgrading customers from 10.5 to 12.5 su1 using the
files downloaded from the support site. We only use PUT to get the upgrade
SO# for licensing, and half of the time that's not even needed.
PUT also gets you bootable iso's, but not always the latest SU.
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020
The PUT has been useless to me outside of some upgrade entitlement scenarios.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 6, 2020, at 11:29, JASON BURWELL via cisco-voip
wrote:
I’ve always wondered the same thing so I’ll be interested to hear some other
answers. PUT has never worked properly for me and no
As far as I know, ordering from PUT creates a sales order number that is used
for entitlement when migrating your licenses. It also gives you a bootable ISO
or should.
From: cisco-voip On Behalf Of Nick via
cisco-voip
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2020 11:20 AM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
I’ve always wondered the same thing so I’ll be interested to hear some other
answers. PUT has never worked properly for me and no one has ever been able to
tell me why so I pretty much just gave up on using that and I’ve downloaded
software from CCO for upgrades.
When I went from 10.5 to 11.5
The upgrade files for CUCM 12.5 both SU1 and SU2 both state the following
For upgrades from 12.x only. Upgrades from 11.x or earlier are requested
via PUT
Is this just incorrect wording as far as i am aware there has never been
any different files for upgrades from 11 or 12, I have ordered
You can register more than one PAK at a time, up to 10. Would that work
for you?
[image: image.png]
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 7:25 AM ROZA, Ariel
wrote:
> Hi, guys.
>
>
>
> Is it posible to register multiple PAKS using the same License Request
> from PLM? Or do I have to get a new License
Hi, guys.
Is it posible to register multiple PAKS using the same License Request from
PLM? Or do I have to get a new License Request after I load each license.
I can´t find a clear answer so far.
I have to register 5+ CUCM PAKs for a customer, and I have to be sure
beforhand, so I don´t screw
23 matches
Mail list logo
