|
Our movement for Cisco Unity was based
strictly on a wholesale move to Cisco VoIP solutions all the way around.
Apparently there’s some cost savings there somewhere. I dunno…
regarding the comment joe made about not ever being in your ad
environment. Concur 100%. You ever find that often times the
products are already bought before your input is requested? I dunno if I have bigger problems with
cisco being in the software space or their horrible turnout of applications after
they’ve acquired them. Unity, call manager, etc… one uses ad…
one uses dirsync in a proprietary ldap server… odd stuff like that.
Not to mention, it took a nda and massive levels of coercion to get cisco to
fess up to what the exact permissions were that are required in order for unity
to work successfully. That was a good month long ordeal. Unfortunately
nda - so I can’t really speak or blog on the exact stuff to correct it.
Their reasoning? Most admins have no idea how to configure the ACLs
properly to support their application. I digress. From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Vander Kooi The price tag will definitely drop as soon
as Microsoft releases Exchange 12 with UM built in. But, it's not THAT
expensive today, and there are some great business pluses to it. We had no
problems showing ROI on VOIP or UM. From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael B. Smith It's a feature with lots of "gee
whiz!" appeal, but once people see the price tag, the response is usually
"ouch!" We are still waiting for the "year of
UM". I'm betting on 2007. :-) From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley [MVP] I think this is definitely a case where Ed
Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Entirely your option. :) Windows 3.11 and
Windows NT are really not the same product. Note I am not saying I won't use cisco
routers because they sucked 12 years ago. As someone else pointed out, software
isn't cisco's ball of wax. There is obviously a little bit of a scary point
there when you consider though that the IOS is software... Also as you mentioned, it
wasn't created or even modified much by cisco. So I don't expect it
is much different now than what I saw. From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Vander Kooi And I will never run Windows because 3.11
just wasn't that great at networking. ;-) From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Being the best available doesn't make
something good and doesn't need a lot of work. :o) It just means it is better than the other
sucky alternatives. I haven't seen unity in years but when I
last saw it, it had me swearing about how bad it was. I seem to recall saying
something along the lines of that will never be in any AD I ever manage. From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Vander Kooi Not sure why you don't like Unity, it's
the best unified messaging app there is right now. Actually has been for over 5
years. I believe that the reason it;s as good as it is, is that it was not
created or even modified much by Cisco, they simply bought a really good
product and left it be for the most part. As for the schema updates, it didn't work.
We made the registry change and it did work. I don't see how that would be tied
to the app as no changes were made there. But who knows. From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hmmm. I need to think about that
again. I think I only saw this behavior in the lab where all the servers
were upgraded instead of wipe and replace. In production, we upgraded
initially then did a replacement effort later. More to the point, UGH Cisco Unity…
I wish to Christ they’d stick to hardware and stop venturing into
software… From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Was it maybe the app itself disallowing
the update? Did you try to just modify the schema to see if it would work? Say
change the rangeupper of cn or something like that and then change it back.
Something innocuous. From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yep, same here. I think upgraded
scenarios have this. From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Vander Kooi Upgraded. From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Upgraded to 2003 or fresh install? From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Vander Kooi I just did this last week to install Cisco
Unity and I still had to enable schema updates in Windows 2003 even though the
user was in Schema Admins. I was under the same impression as Travis, but after
enabling updating in the registry it worked fine. From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Did you work this out Travis? If not, I would recommend pulling up the
sysinternal registry and file monitors as well as tracing the AD calls. From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi,
I
am having some problems updating the schema for Avaya Unified Messaging. It is
my thinking that in Windows 2003 the schema is already enabled for updates as
long as you are in the Schema Admins group. In Windows 2000 you had to enable
the Schema to be updated. Am I correct or misguided? Thanks!
|
Title: Schema Updates
- RE: [ActiveDir] Schema Updates Marcus.Oh
- RE: [ActiveDir] Schema Updates Ayers, Diane
- RE: [ActiveDir] Schema Updates joe
- RE: [ActiveDir] Schema Updates Marcus.Oh
- RE: [ActiveDir] Schema Updates Tim Vander Kooi
- RE: [ActiveDir] Schema Updates deji
- RE: [ActiveDir] Schema Updates Marcus.Oh
- RE: [ActiveDir] Schema Updates Ed Crowley [MVP]
- RE: [ActiveDir] Schema Updates deji
- RE: [ActiveDir] Schema Updates deji
