Send cisco-voip mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of cisco-voip digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Jabber 9.1 and CUCM 8.6 (Leslie Meade)
2. Re: Jabber 9.1 and CUCM 8.6 (Ryan Ratliff)
3. MeetingPlace 8.5 and WebEx (Steven Sarte)
4. Re: CUCM SRV records CSCth25928 (Ted Nugent)
5. Re: CUCM SRV records CSCth25928 (Justin Steinberg)
6. Re: CUCM SRV records CSCth25928 (Rick Gilliam)
7. Re: CUCM SRV records CSCth25928 (Ted Nugent)
8. Re: MeetingPlace 8.5 and WebEx (Erick B)
9. Re: CUCM SRV records CSCth25928 (Eric Pedersen)
10. Re: CUCM SRV records CSCth25928 (Ryan Ratliff)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:54:11 +0000
From: Leslie Meade <[email protected]>
To: "cisco-voip ([email protected])"
<[email protected]>
Subject: [cisco-voip] Jabber 9.1 and CUCM 8.6
Message-ID:
<f64719604b4e6f41bdbb2af38e7609f433dd1...@lvscgyex03.longviewsystems.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sanity question.. I am right by saying the following ?
I read that prior to 8.5 we had to add application dial rules to the
callmanager where it would be published as an xml file, and the xml file was
downloaded to the client.
Now with 8.6 and up the file is no longer needed, but the application dial
rules still need to be configured, as the client is now sending the numbers to
the callmanager and it is now processed on the callmanager.
Cheers
Leslie
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20121115/709345db/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:18:24 -0500
From: Ryan Ratliff <[email protected]>
To: Leslie Meade <[email protected]>
Cc: "cisco-voip \([email protected]\)"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Jabber 9.1 and CUCM 8.6
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Correct, though the clients need to be of the correct version that they know
now to download and apply the rules locally or you could end up in a situation
where they are applied in both places.
-Ryan
On Nov 15, 2012, at 12:54 PM, Leslie Meade <[email protected]> wrote:
Sanity question.. I am right by saying the following ?
I read that prior to 8.5 we had to add application dial rules to the
callmanager where it would be published as an xml file, and the xml file was
downloaded to the client.
Now with 8.6 and up the file is no longer needed, but the application dial
rules still need to be configured, as the client is now sending the numbers to
the callmanager and it is now processed on the callmanager.
Cheers
Leslie
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
[email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20121115/9908586b/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:32:49 -0500
From: Steven Sarte <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: [cisco-voip] MeetingPlace 8.5 and WebEx
Message-ID:
<caa4qg4x9p4bvelxkdaobog99owz3gpql2bqbl_qq_vjhyfg...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sorry for the stupid question but just want to confirm when you
integrate MeetigPlace 8.5 and WebEx together you use your own PRI's?
Is this statement correct?
Thanks
Steven
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:58:11 -0500
From: Ted Nugent <[email protected]>
To: Ryan Ratliff <[email protected]>
Cc: Cisco VoIPoE List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM SRV records CSCth25928
Message-ID:
<CAHs2VYuUmLFa4n-rCBWJ4g720QZdtWhSHGx9a=pmovuvmlx...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Does anyone know (have tested) that the multiple hosts on the SIP trunk
will actually provide failover if the primary host goes done? If that's the
case then no need to make a-records right?
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Ted Nugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> That's what I was afraid of... Was allowing multiple host entries in the
> SIP trunk configuration put in place to get around this at least in
> a failover configuration? This "enhancement" has been open for WELL over a
> year!
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Ryan Ratliff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Status: Open(Assigned)
>>
>>
>> Not resolved yet. Use A records as a workaround.
>>
>> -Ryan
>>
>> On Nov 14, 2012, at 6:19 PM, Ted Nugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Is it possible this is still unresolved or maybe been resolved in a
>> duplicate bug id? HOPEFULLY!
>> Does anyone know if this was resolved by 8.6.2?
>>
>> *CSCth25928 Bug Details*
>> * Change the behavior for invoking additional DNS SRV queries * *
>> Symptom:*
>> When the Primary server is down CM does not try the second server
>> mentioned in
>> the SRV record.
>> Even when the timer expires it resets the timer and again starts sending
>> the
>> NOTIFY request to Primary DNS SRV record.
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20121115/41ec04a0/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:01:42 -0500
From: Justin Steinberg <[email protected]>
To: Ted Nugent <[email protected]>
Cc: Cisco VoIPoE List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM SRV records CSCth25928
Message-ID:
<CACCAghYRTv2D4VHUwS2O0F=80ykawzrdf9f+njigtkr+n-o...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
if I recall it seems to round robin to the IPs. I would recommend using
multiple SIP trunks in CM and controlling your routing via RL/RG.
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Ted Nugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> Does anyone know (have tested) that the multiple hosts on the SIP trunk
> will actually provide failover if the primary host goes done? If that's the
> case then no need to make a-records right?
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Ted Nugent <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> That's what I was afraid of... Was allowing multiple host entries in the
>> SIP trunk configuration put in place to get around this at least in
>> a failover configuration? This "enhancement" has been open for WELL over a
>> year!
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Ryan Ratliff <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Status: Open(Assigned)
>>>
>>>
>>> Not resolved yet. Use A records as a workaround.
>>>
>>> -Ryan
>>>
>>> On Nov 14, 2012, at 6:19 PM, Ted Nugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Is it possible this is still unresolved or maybe been resolved in a
>>> duplicate bug id? HOPEFULLY!
>>> Does anyone know if this was resolved by 8.6.2?
>>>
>>> *CSCth25928 Bug Details*
>>> * Change the behavior for invoking additional DNS SRV queries * *
>>> Symptom:*
>>> When the Primary server is down CM does not try the second server
>>> mentioned in
>>> the SRV record.
>>> Even when the timer expires it resets the timer and again starts sending
>>> the
>>> NOTIFY request to Primary DNS SRV record.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20121115/5a9cae37/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:23:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Rick Gilliam <[email protected]>
To: Ted Nugent <[email protected]>, Ryan Ratliff
<[email protected]>
Cc: Cisco VoIPoE List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM SRV records CSCth25928
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
If this is the case and has been resolved , I have not heard or seen it.
I have sites that need this resolved also.
?
Rick G
________________________________
From: Ted Nugent <[email protected]>
To: Ryan Ratliff <[email protected]>
Cc: Cisco VoIPoE List <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM SRV records CSCth25928
Does anyone know (have tested) that the multiple hosts on the SIP trunk will
actually provide failover if the primary host goes done? If that's the case
then no need to make a-records right?
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Ted Nugent <[email protected]> wrote:
That's what I was afraid of... Was allowing multiple host?entries in the SIP
trunk configuration put in place to get around this at least in a?failover
configuration? This "enhancement" has been open for WELL over a year!
>On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Ryan Ratliff <[email protected]> wrote:
>Status: Open(Assigned)
>>>
>>
>>Not resolved yet. ?Use A records as a workaround.
>>-Ryan
>>On Nov 14, 2012, at 6:19 PM, Ted Nugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Is it possible this is still unresolved or maybe been resolved in a duplicate
>>bug id? HOPEFULLY!
>>Does anyone know if this was resolved by 8.6.2?
>>
>>CSCth25928 Bug Details
>>
>>Change the behavior for invoking additional DNS SRV queries
>>Symptom:
>>When the Primary server is down CM does not try the second server mentioned in
>>the SRV record.
>>Even when the timer expires it resets the timer and again starts sending the
>>NOTIFY request to Primary DNS SRV record.
>>_______________________________________________cisco-voip mailing
>>[email protected]https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip_______________________________________________cisco-voip
>> mailing
>>[email protected]https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20121115/347ac621/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:25:54 -0500
From: Ted Nugent <[email protected]>
To: Justin Steinberg <[email protected]>
Cc: Cisco VoIPoE List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM SRV records CSCth25928
Message-ID:
<cahs2vyurtd9sixjilufzzpzymanelzezoxvfnzppyfs0nqh...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
This is more for Presence info to CUPS, at least in this particular
situation... I'm wondering if it did round robbin and the CUPS cluster is
setup for failover, all users assigned to the publisher if that would still
work for presence? I would think so?
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Justin Steinberg <[email protected]>wrote:
> if I recall it seems to round robin to the IPs. I would recommend using
> multiple SIP trunks in CM and controlling your routing via RL/RG.
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Ted Nugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Does anyone know (have tested) that the multiple hosts on the SIP trunk
>> will actually provide failover if the primary host goes done? If that's the
>> case then no need to make a-records right?
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Ted Nugent <[email protected]>wrote:
>>
>>> That's what I was afraid of... Was allowing multiple host entries in the
>>> SIP trunk configuration put in place to get around this at least in
>>> a failover configuration? This "enhancement" has been open for WELL over a
>>> year!
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Ryan Ratliff <[email protected]>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Status: Open(Assigned)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not resolved yet. Use A records as a workaround.
>>>>
>>>> -Ryan
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 14, 2012, at 6:19 PM, Ted Nugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Is it possible this is still unresolved or maybe been resolved in a
>>>> duplicate bug id? HOPEFULLY!
>>>> Does anyone know if this was resolved by 8.6.2?
>>>>
>>>> *CSCth25928 Bug Details*
>>>> * Change the behavior for invoking additional DNS SRV queries * *
>>>> Symptom:*
>>>> When the Primary server is down CM does not try the second server
>>>> mentioned in
>>>> the SRV record.
>>>> Even when the timer expires it resets the timer and again starts
>>>> sending the
>>>> NOTIFY request to Primary DNS SRV record.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20121115/420cf2db/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 22:25:14 -0600
From: Erick B <[email protected]>
To: Steven Sarte <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] MeetingPlace 8.5 and WebEx
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Yes, the local meeting place server will use the Resources on your call manager
(Pri, sip trunk, etc) .
We use mp 8.5 for local audio server with web ex scheduler in cloud.
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 15, 2012, at 4:32 PM, Steven Sarte <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sorry for the stupid question but just want to confirm when you
> integrate MeetigPlace 8.5 and WebEx together you use your own PRI's?
> Is this statement correct?
>
> Thanks
> Steven
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:13:53 +0000
From: Eric Pedersen <[email protected]>
To: Ryan Ratliff <[email protected]>, Chris Ward <[email protected]>
Cc: Cisco VoIPoE List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM SRV records CSCth25928
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Is this referring to only the CUPS publish SIP trunk or any SIP trunk? It
doesn't make sense to me for CUCM to support SRV records but only use the first
entry.
Can I just add both CUPS servers as destinations on the same SIP trunk? The bug
looks like it was entered for CUCM 7.1 before multiple destinations were
supported.
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ryan Ratliff
Sent: 15 November 2012 8:15 AM
To: Chris Ward
Cc: Cisco VoIPoE List
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM SRV records CSCth25928
Since it's an enhancement you should go through your account team as well. TAC
can only push so hard on that category of defect.
-Ryan
On Nov 15, 2012, at 9:29 AM, Chris Ward (chrward)
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
That defect is still unresolved. You would need to contact TAC for an ETA or
for them to push the BU for faster resolution.
+Chris
Unity Connection TME
From:
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>]
On Behalf Of Ted Nugent
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 6:20 PM
To: Cisco VoIPoE List
Subject: [cisco-voip] CUCM SRV records CSCth25928
Is it possible this is still unresolved or maybe been resolved in a duplicate
bug id? HOPEFULLY!
Does anyone know if this was resolved by 8.6.2?
CSCth25928 Bug Details
Change the behavior for invoking additional DNS SRV queries
Symptom:
When the Primary server is down CM does not try the second server mentioned in
the SRV record.
Even when the timer expires it resets the timer and again starts sending the
NOTIFY request to Primary DNS SRV record.
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
The contents of this message may contain confidential and/or privileged
subject matter. If this message has been received in error, please contact
the sender and delete all copies. Like other forms of communication,
e-mail communications may be vulnerable to interception by unauthorized
parties. If you do not wish us to communicate with you by e-mail, please
notify us at your earliest convenience. In the absence of such
notification, your consent is assumed. Should you choose to allow us to
communicate by e-mail, we will not take any additional security measures
(such as encryption) unless specifically requested.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20121116/ec3d020a/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:37:14 -0500
From: Ryan Ratliff <[email protected]>
To: Eric Pedersen <[email protected]>
Cc: Cisco VoIPoE List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM SRV records CSCth25928
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
The bug applies to how UCM handles SRV records, so it would be for any SIP
trunk. I agree that it doesn't make sense to only use the first entry but if
that's how the original feature was designed then we're in a situation where
rather than getting a bug fixed we are changing expected behavior. It's a fine
line, and in some circumstances seems like semantics but it's the world we have
to live in.
I've reached out to the developer that is assigned the bug to confirm that it
really is an enhancement and see if there is any ETA for a fix. If this is
important to you then you should be sure to bring this to the attention of your
account team or the UCM PM team if you happen to have contacts there. TAC has
next to no power when it comes to getting enhancement defects fixed. To really
make something happen it needs to come from marketing and they need to hear
from customers and account teams.
-Ryan
On Nov 16, 2012, at 11:13 AM, Eric Pedersen <[email protected]> wrote:
Is this referring to only the CUPS publish SIP trunk or any SIP trunk? It
doesn't make sense to me for CUCM to support SRV records but only use the first
entry.
Can I just add both CUPS servers as destinations on the same SIP trunk? The bug
looks like it was entered for CUCM 7.1 before multiple destinations were
supported.
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ryan Ratliff
Sent: 15 November 2012 8:15 AM
To: Chris Ward
Cc: Cisco VoIPoE List
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM SRV records CSCth25928
Since it's an enhancement you should go through your account team as well. TAC
can only push so hard on that category of defect.
-Ryan
On Nov 15, 2012, at 9:29 AM, Chris Ward (chrward) <[email protected]> wrote:
That defect is still unresolved. You would need to contact TAC for an ETA or
for them to push the BU for faster resolution.
+Chris
Unity Connection TME
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ted Nugent
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 6:20 PM
To: Cisco VoIPoE List
Subject: [cisco-voip] CUCM SRV records CSCth25928
Is it possible this is still unresolved or maybe been resolved in a duplicate
bug id? HOPEFULLY!
Does anyone know if this was resolved by 8.6.2?
CSCth25928 Bug Details
Change the behavior for invoking additional DNS SRV queries
Symptom:
When the Primary server is down CM does not try the second server mentioned in
the SRV record.
Even when the timer expires it resets the timer and again starts sending the
NOTIFY request to Primary DNS SRV record.
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
[email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
The contents of this message may contain confidential and/or privileged
subject matter. If this message has been received in error, please contact
the sender and delete all copies. Like other forms of communication,
e-mail communications may be vulnerable to interception by unauthorized
parties. If you do not wish us to communicate with you by e-mail, please
notify us at your earliest convenience. In the absence of such
notification, your consent is assumed. Should you choose to allow us to
communicate by e-mail, we will not take any additional security measures
(such as encryption) unless specifically requested.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20121116/9877c0be/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
[email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
End of cisco-voip Digest, Vol 109, Issue 13
*******************************************
