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. CTI architectural Change? 8.x (Scott Voll)
2. Re: CTI architectural Change? 8.x (Ryan LaFountain (rlafount))
3. Re: LDAP Custom Filter (Tim Frazee)
4. Re: LDAP Custom Filter (Lelio Fulgenzi)
5. Re: intercluster trunk over IPSec VPN (Abebe Amare)
6. Re: LDAP Custom Filter (Nate VanMaren)
7. Re: LDAP Custom Filter (Lelio Fulgenzi)
8. MWI issues ([email protected])
9. tracing translations easily (Lelio Fulgenzi)
10. Re: MWI issues (Jason Aarons (AM))
11. Re: MWI issues ([email protected])
12. Hlog soft key (abbas Wali)
13. Re: MWI issues (Rick Gilliam)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:28:43 -0800
From: Scott Voll <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: [cisco-voip] CTI architectural Change? 8.x
Message-ID:
<CAHgd+39puCaM7vjGnqZEHxEM=1+evra7mfu5az6_c0n+w9f...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
When I was at Cisco Live this year, unfortunately I didn't spend much time
with UC stuff so I'm guessing I missed it.
Was there an architectural change in 8.x with CTI integration where cisco
moved away from associated phone and moved to using EM profiles?
I stumbled across this with a Bug in CCx (CSCtx48427) where that was the
work around.
We were greatly concerned about a problem we are having with recording
users, were we only need about 200 users to have recording capability but
they want to use any phone. So we though we were going to have to
associate over 1600 phones and were concerned about taxing the CM in the
process.
All testing so far shows that just using the EM Profile works. This would
decrease the Load on our CM cluster and stream line the setup process
significantly.
This this a Real change I can bank on moving forward?
TIA
Scott
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20121120/52cd040e/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 18:55:26 +0000
From: "Ryan LaFountain (rlafount)" <[email protected]>
To: Scott Voll <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CTI architectural Change? 8.x
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Hi Scott,
I filed the bug you reference, so am familiar with it. There were a couple of
changes in the CUCM versions since 8.x.
The first is what you've described whereby you should now associate an EM
profile to a CTI Provider Application User instead of the physical phone. This
was added in 8.x. You have already stumbled upon the first use for recording
users, but it was also intended to be more efficient when configuring large
Contact Center deployments where there were many agents that could use multiple
phones but only certain amounts on shift at a time, etc. The reasoning behind
the improvement is the same in both cases.
Under the hood, CUCM actually associates the physical device to the Application
User upon EM login, so the application (recording server, UCC) gets notified
the same as if you associated the physical phone to the user in prior versions.
This hoteling scenario is reversed upon EM logout.
Hope this helps.
Thank you,
Ryan LaFountain
Unified Contact Center
Cisco Services
Direct: +1 919 392 9898
Email: [email protected]
Hours: M ? F 9:00am ? 5:00pm
From: Scott Voll <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 1:28 PM
To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: [cisco-voip] CTI architectural Change? 8.x
When I was at Cisco Live this year, unfortunately I didn't spend much time with
UC stuff so I'm guessing I missed it.
Was there an architectural change in 8.x with CTI integration where cisco moved
away from associated phone and moved to using EM profiles?
I stumbled across this with a Bug in CCx (CSCtx48427) where that was the work
around.
We were greatly concerned about a problem we are having with recording users,
were we only need about 200 users to have recording capability but they want to
use any phone. So we though we were going to have to associate over 1600
phones and were concerned about taxing the CM in the process.
All testing so far shows that just using the EM Profile works. This would
decrease the Load on our CM cluster and stream line the setup process
significantly.
This this a Real change I can bank on moving forward?
TIA
Scott
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20121120/363d8f8b/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 18:01:58 -0600
From: Tim Frazee <[email protected]>
To: Lelio Fulgenzi <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] LDAP Custom Filter
Message-ID:
<CABzsfHyR6jEP7mgZD_mU=5Rs7qe08Ko2rAx7KJg_=jsuf_u...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
any LDAP browser recommendations? Softerra seems to be ok for free.
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Lelio Fulgenzi <[email protected]> wrote:
> good to see you were able to confirm your suspicions. the LDAP browswer
> tools are great, some allow you to enter LDAP filters as well which can
> help too.
>
> ---
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (ANNU)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
> - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From: *"Russell Chaseling" <[email protected]>
> *To: *"Lelio Fulgenzi" <[email protected]>
> *Cc: *"Nate VanMaren" <[email protected]>,
> [email protected]
> *Sent: *Tuesday, November 20, 2012 5:42:54 AM
> *Subject: *RE: [cisco-voip] LDAP Custom Filter
>
>
> Nope but just downloaded one and can see that contacts don?t have a
> sAMAccountName
> field ? which means they will never sync in my scenario
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> *From:* Lelio Fulgenzi [mailto:[email protected]]
> *Sent:* 20 November 2012 10:16
> *To:* Russell Chaseling
> *Cc:* Nate VanMaren; [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] LDAP Custom Filter
>
>
>
> Do you have an LDAP browser? Those things are fantastic and can answer a
> lot of questions.
>
> Sent from my iPhone...
>
>
>
> "There's no place like 127.0.0.1"
>
>
> On Nov 20, 2012, at 5:07 AM, Russell Chaseling <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Yep. Last name is there alright. Contacts sync fine when USerID is set to
> telephoneNumber??.it has to be an issue with the LDAP Attribute for UserID.
> I?m guessing that Contacts don?t have the sAMAccountName field
>
>
>
> *From:* Lelio Fulgenzi [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>]
> *Sent:* 20 November 2012 09:55
> *To:* Russell Chaseling
> *Cc:* Nate VanMaren; [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] LDAP Custom Filter
>
>
>
> Do they have last names? Users without last names will not get imported.
>
> Sent from my iPhone...
>
>
>
> "There's no place like 127.0.0.1"
>
>
> On Nov 20, 2012, at 4:41 AM, Russell Chaseling <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> They are enabled. I think the issue is that Contacts will never sync when
> the LDAP Attribute for User ID is set to sAMAccountName because when I
> changed this to telephoneNumber in my lab it then was able to sync the
> Contacts.
>
>
>
> This is not an option for me so if anyone else has had any success I?d
> like to know
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> *From:* Nate VanMaren
> [mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>]
>
> *Sent:* 20 November 2012 00:00
> *To:* Russell Chaseling; [email protected]
> *Subject:* RE: LDAP Custom Filter
>
>
>
> Are you contacts ?disabled? (UserAccountControl:1.2.840.113556.1.4.803:=2)
>
>
>
> *From:* [email protected] [
> mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>]
> *On Behalf Of *Russell Chaseling
> *Sent:* Monday, November 19, 2012 4:24 PM
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] LDAP Custom Filter
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> Anyone been able to get CUCM 8.6 to sync Active Directory Contacts as well
> as Users ?
>
>
>
> Tried below but still not working:
>
>
> (&(objectclass=user)(objectclass=contact)(!(objectclass=Computer))(!(UserAccountControl:1.2.840.113556.1.4.803:=2)))
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Russell
>
>
>
> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
> recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any
> unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
> are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email
> and destroy all copies of the original message.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20121120/5fdf92bd/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 19:22:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Lelio Fulgenzi <[email protected]>
To: Tim Frazee <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] LDAP Custom Filter
Message-ID:
<1063965978.922319.1353457362262.javamail.r...@squeaky.cs.uoguelph.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
this is the one i use. i've used this for a number of years.
http://www.novell.com/coolsolutions/tools/13765.html
it's quite old, and i don't think it's even supported anymore, but it's the one
i've been able to get working the best. and it's free. for non-commercial use
anyways.
---
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (ANNU)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
- LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Frazee" <[email protected]>
To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Russell Chaseling" <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, 20 November, 2012 7:01:58 PM
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] LDAP Custom Filter
any LDAP browser recommendations? Softerra seems to be ok for free.
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Lelio Fulgenzi < [email protected] > wrote:
good to see you were able to confirm your suspicions. the LDAP browswer tools
are great, some allow you to enter LDAP filters as well which can help too.
---
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (ANNU)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
- LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
From: "Russell Chaseling" < [email protected] >
To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" < [email protected] >
Cc: "Nate VanMaren" < [email protected] >, [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 5:42:54 AM
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] LDAP Custom Filter
Nope but just downloaded one and can see that contacts don?t have a
sAMAccountName field ? which means they will never sync in my scenario
Cheers
From: Lelio Fulgenzi [mailto: [email protected] ]
Sent: 20 November 2012 10:16
To: Russell Chaseling
Cc: Nate VanMaren; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] LDAP Custom Filter
Do you have an LDAP browser? Those things are fantastic and can answer a lot of
questions.
Sent from my iPhone...
"There's no place like 127.0.0.1"
On Nov 20, 2012, at 5:07 AM, Russell Chaseling < [email protected] >
wrote:
Yep. Last name is there alright. Contacts sync fine when USerID is set to
telephoneNumber??.it has to be an issue with the LDAP Attribute for UserID. I?m
guessing that Contacts don?t have the sAMAccountName field
From: Lelio Fulgenzi [ mailto:[email protected] ]
Sent: 20 November 2012 09:55
To: Russell Chaseling
Cc: Nate VanMaren; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] LDAP Custom Filter
Do they have last names? Users without last names will not get imported.
Sent from my iPhone...
"There's no place like 127.0.0.1"
On Nov 20, 2012, at 4:41 AM, Russell Chaseling < [email protected] >
wrote:
Hi,
They are enabled. I think the issue is that Contacts will never sync when the
LDAP Attribute for User ID is set to sAMAccountName because when I changed this
to telephoneNumber in my lab it then was able to sync the Contacts.
This is not an option for me so if anyone else has had any success I?d like to
know
Cheers
From: Nate VanMaren [ mailto:[email protected] ]
Sent: 20 November 2012 00:00
To: Russell Chaseling; [email protected]
Subject: RE: LDAP Custom Filter
Are you contacts ?disabled? ( UserAccountControl:1.2.840.113556.1.4.803:=2)
From: [email protected] [
mailto:[email protected] ] On Behalf Of Russell Chaseling
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 4:24 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [cisco-voip] LDAP Custom Filter
Hi All,
Anyone been able to get CUCM 8.6 to sync Active Directory Contacts as well as
Users ?
Tried below but still not working:
(&(objectclass=user)(objectclass=contact)(!(objectclass=Computer))(!(UserAccountControl:1.2.840.113556.1.4.803:=2)))
Cheers
Russell
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review,
use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of
the original message.
_______________________________________________
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/20121120/e11ef5fe/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:21:42 +0300
From: Abebe Amare <[email protected]>
To: Nick Matthews <[email protected]>, Peter Slow
<[email protected]>
Cc: cisco voip <[email protected]>, Wes Sisk
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] intercluster trunk over IPSec VPN
Message-ID:
<canrv87jep2jvc3n9xfnuz9ym7eg61cjppoedpe7ncaawph1...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Hello,
I changed the trunk to SIP on both CUCM and CUCME and the problem is solved.
thanks for your support
Abebe
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Abebe Amare <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
> I apologize for digging up an old issue. The problem I am facing now is
> having No Ringback Tone for Calls from Cisco CallManager to Cisco
> CallManager Express. I followed the guide on
>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk1077/technologies_tech_note09186a0080094c33.shtml#ringcme
> but it did not solve the problem.
> I have attached a trace file from the CUCM while making the call.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Abebe Amare <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Nick, Peter
>>
>> Enabling H323 fast start on both ends did the trick. I highly appreciate
>> all of the incredible support I received from the group.
>>
>> best regards,
>>
>> Abebe
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Nick Matthews <[email protected]>wrote:
>>
>>> A few notes:
>>> -ICT to CME isn't the recommended option. ICT is very similar to
>>> H.323 so it will work but you may run into weird issues like transfers
>>> failing with ICT vs H323 Gateway.
>>>
>>> -When the ASA creates the IPsec tunnel it will automatically copy the
>>> DSCP marking from the inside packet to the outside packet. So if
>>> you're correctly doing QoS based on DSCP you should still be in good
>>> shape. If you need it based on L4-L7 it would need to happen before
>>> the ASA. On a router you use 'qos pre-classify' if it's doing both
>>> the tunneling and QoS.
>>>
>>> -IPSec through any wan acceleration is probably not very effective.
>>> It may be best to exempt the entire stream, as well as any RTP/UDP
>>> traffic.
>>>
>>> -Pete has a very good point. They call it fast start for a reason.
>>> When you switch it to a H323 gateway enable both inbound and outbound
>>> fast start. You'll need to check 'MTP Required' and make sure you've
>>> got a software MTP on a router to do g729 mtp sessions. This could
>>> cut down a few seconds of delay.
>>>
>>> -nick
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Wes Sisk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> > Abebe,
>>> >
>>> > I also believe Jason has a good point. I have only seen bad results
>>> when
>>> > combining with WCCP mechanisms.
>>> >
>>> > /wes
>>> >
>>> > On Feb 15, 2012, at 3:52 AM, Abebe Amare wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi Peter,
>>> >
>>> > It is possible to create an ICT pointing to a CME. On the CME side,
>>> you just
>>> > configure voip dial-peer pointing to the CM. Saying that, here is a
>>> how the
>>> > problem manifests:
>>> > 1.The problem occurs during call set up and on one leg (the caller
>>> does not
>>> > hear the receiver). This happens regardless of the call setup
>>> originating
>>> > from the CM or CME side.
>>> > 2.The caller usually does not hear the other side for few seconds
>>> (3-4);
>>> > this happens right after the ring-back tone is stopped.
>>> > 3.The receiver when picking up the phone and starts by saying hello the
>>> > other party does not hear any voice until 3-4 seconds elapse.
>>> >
>>> > Wes, I will collect packet captures and call statistics from the phone
>>> > concurrently and compare the result.
>>> >
>>> > best regards,
>>> >
>>> > Abebe
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:20 AM, Jason Aarons (AM)
>>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> My coworker spent a month in November working a issue only to find a
>>> >> Riverbed was messing with control traffic. Not your issue, but I find
>>> you
>>> >> spend more in labor hours than you get back in bandwidth costs. I?d
>>> exclude
>>> >> voip. How much wan optimization can you get out of G.7xx ?
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> From: [email protected]
>>> >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Abebe Amare
>>> >> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 12:45 PM
>>> >> To: Wes Sisk; Stephen Welsh; Mike King
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Cc: cisco voip
>>> >> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] intercluster trunk over IPSec VPN
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi Wes,
>>> >>
>>> >> Here is how the devices involved are connected
>>> >>
>>> >> CUCM->6509->ASA->Packetshaper->2821->VSAT Link->Internet<-ASA<-CUCME
>>> >>
>>> >> I do not have control over the CUCME on the remote side for the
>>> moment.
>>> >> The VPN tunnels terminate at the ASA on each side. I am not
>>> comfortable with
>>> >> configuring QoS on the ASA, that is why I configured on the 2821. And
>>> since
>>> >> the 2821 can not see the pre-tunnel traffic, I decided to put the
>>> traffic
>>> >> passing over the tunnel in LLQ.
>>> >> The VSAT link is used for basic Internet browsing. The speed of the
>>> VSAT
>>> >> connection is 768 kbps and we do take slow TCP connection as
>>> acceptable. We
>>> >> use IronPort web security appliance together with Packetshaper to
>>> tightly
>>> >> control what goes on the link.
>>> >>
>>> >> I have collected some RTP streams using wireshark and it does not show
>>> >> excessive jitter, delay or packet loss in the RTP analysis which
>>> seems to
>>> >> contradict what I shared about the RTP statistics directly from the
>>> phone.
>>> >> How do I find out if the call setup signalling is delayed?
>>> >>
>>> >> regards,
>>> >>
>>> >> Abebe
>>> >>
>>> >> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Wes Sisk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> My QoS is a bit rusty as it's time to re-certify. That said "put the
>>> VPN
>>> >> traffic in LLQ" doesn't sound quite right. It is *voice* that needs
>>> to be
>>> >> in LLQ.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/srnd/8x/netstruc.html#wp1044413
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Otherwise, it might be beneficial to conduct some tests to better
>>> >> understand the network. What traffic flows over the VSAT link? Is
>>> the
>>> >> call setup signaling delayed? Is there excessive delay at the
>>> beginning of
>>> >> any TCP/UDP stream or is that unique to the UDP/RTP voice traffic?
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Regards,
>>> >>
>>> >> Wes
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Feb 14, 2012, at 1:23 AM, Abebe Amare wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi Wes, thanks a lot for your detail explanation, it is very
>>> educational.
>>> >>
>>> >> I should have stated earlier that the Internet connection is a VSAT
>>> link.
>>> >> Here is a ping output from the CUCM to the far side CUCME,
>>> >>
>>> >> admin:utils network ping 192.168.100.1
>>> >> PING 192.168.100.1 (192.168.100.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
>>> >> 64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=254 time=577 ms
>>> >> 64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=254 time=579 ms
>>> >> 64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=254 time=587 ms
>>> >> 64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=254 time=584 ms
>>> >>
>>> >> --- 192.168.100.1 ping statistics ---
>>> >> 4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3036ms
>>> >> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 577.892/582.386/587.697/4.048 ms, pipe 2
>>> >>
>>> >> I have configured QoS on the gateway routers to put the VPN traffic
>>> in LLQ
>>> >> with reserved bandwidth. What other mechanisms do you suggest to
>>> improve the
>>> >> voice quality?
>>> >>
>>> >> best regards,
>>> >>
>>> >> Abebe
>>> >>
>>> >> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Wes Sisk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi Abebe,
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Those are pretty bad. These are of particular concern:
>>> >>
>>> >> Rcvr Codec G729
>>> >> Sender Codec G729
>>> >> Rcvr size 20ms
>>> >> sender size 20ms
>>> >> Rcvr Packets 476
>>> >> sender packets 709
>>> >> Avg Jitter 31
>>> >> Max Jitter 185
>>> >> Rcvr discarded 1
>>> >>
>>> >> Cumulative Conceal ratio 0.0319
>>> >> Max Conceal ratio 0.0446
>>> >> Conceal sec 5
>>> >> Severly conceal sec 1
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> I interpret this as:
>>> >>
>>> >> G.729 has a lower MOS so we're starting with less audio quality. The
>>> >> phone sent 709 packets but received 476 packets. At 20msec
>>> packetization
>>> >> the phone has sent 14.1 seconds of audio but received only 9.5
>>> seconds of
>>> >> audio. The phone cannot begin counting until the first RTP packet
>>> arrives
>>> >> so this may account for an additional gap between these metrics and
>>> actual
>>> >> user experience. The tx/rx is normally very similar. Either there
>>> was a
>>> >> delay in signaling negotiating bidirectional audio or this phone first
>>> >> started receiving RTP packets ~5 seconds into the call. After that
>>> Jitter
>>> >> of 31 is not great but would generally still be intelligible audio.
>>> Max
>>> >> jitter of 185 is pretty much impossible to recover. Each packet
>>> should
>>> >> contain 20msec of audio. At least one packet arrived 185msec late.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Recvr discarded 1 means the phone discarded one rtp packet it
>>> received.
>>> >> Discard can happen for several reasons but with max jitter 185 it is
>>> very
>>> >> likely the packet was just too late to be used. When a 20msec slice
>>> of
>>> >> audio is unavailable the phone attempts to conceal that in the audio
>>> stream.
>>> >> This leads to next stats:
>>> >>
>>> >> Conceal sec 5
>>> >> Severly conceal sec 1
>>> >>
>>> >> For 5 seconds the phone used the g.729 packet loss concealment
>>> algorithm
>>> >> to try and mask the absence of packets. This is going to be silence,
>>> noise,
>>> >> or otherwise unintelligible audio to the user.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> It looks like something is indeed inhibiting RTP packet flow toward
>>> this
>>> >> phone. A packet capture will show more details but it's not
>>> particularly
>>> >> necessary from the phone/application perspective. The underlying
>>> packet
>>> >> network needs some improvements to delivery adequate voice quality.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> /wes
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Feb 13, 2012, at 9:31 AM, Abebe Amare wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi Wes,
>>> >>
>>> >> Here is the call statistics from the phone for one call
>>> >>
>>> >> Rcvr Codec G729
>>> >> Sender Codec G729
>>> >> Rcvr size 20ms
>>> >> sender size 20ms
>>> >> Rcvr Packets 476
>>> >> sender packets 709
>>> >> Avg Jitter 31
>>> >> Max Jitter 185
>>> >> Rcvr discarded 1
>>> >> Rcvr lost packets 0
>>> >> Avg MOS LQK 0.0
>>> >> Min MOS LQK 0.0
>>> >> Max MOS LQK 0.0
>>> >> Cumulative Conceal ratio 0.0319
>>> >> Max Conceal ratio 0.0446
>>> >> Conceal sec 5
>>> >> Severly conceal sec 1
>>> >>
>>> >> Is the jitter too high?
>>> >>
>>> >> regards,
>>> >>
>>> >> Abebe
>>> >>
>>> >> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:32 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> I was surprised to find that SLA is not included in the IPBase module
>>> of
>>> >> v15, nor in the UC module. You need the Data module.
>>> >>
>>> >> Sent from my iPhone...
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> "There's no place like 127.0.0.1"
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Feb 10, 2012, at 12:20 PM, Dennis Heim <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Maybe a good place for some IP SLA monitoring.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Dennis Heim
>>> >> Senior Engineer (Unified Communications)
>>> >> CDW Advanced Technology Services
>>> >> 10610 9th Place
>>> >> Bellevue, WA 98004
>>> >>
>>> >> 425.310.5299 Single Number Reach (WA)
>>> >>
>>> >> 317.569.4255 Single Number Reach (IN)
>>> >> 317.569.4201 Fax
>>> >> [email protected]
>>> >> cdw.com/content/solutions/unified-communications/
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> From: [email protected]
>>> >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Wes Sisk
>>> >> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 10:36 AM
>>> >> To: Abebe Amare
>>> >> Cc: cisco voip
>>> >> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] intercluster trunk over IPSec VPN
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> most likely still packet throughput issues. packets may be late to the
>>> >> point of discarded. they would not technically be lost in that case.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> this would manifest as high jitter. setup the initial all and press
>>> the
>>> >> "i" or "?" button twice on the phone to see call statistics. beyond
>>> that
>>> >> take a packet capture. wireshark has some decent RTP analysis tools
>>> built
>>> >> in.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> /wes
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Feb 10, 2012, at 6:41 AM, Abebe Amare wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Dears, thank you all for the excellent support
>>> >>
>>> >> I managed to keep the VPN tunnel up be sending periodic ping but the
>>> >> problem still persist. Bandwidth is reserved for at least four calls
>>> (taking
>>> >> into consideration VPN overhead) on a Packetshaper and the call
>>> quality is
>>> >> good mid-conversation. But it is is clipping the first few seconds. I
>>> dont
>>> >> see any packet loss n the CMR records for a test call. What should I
>>> be
>>> >> looking for?
>>> >>
>>> >> thanks in advance
>>> >>
>>> >> Abebe
>>> >>
>>> >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Wes Sisk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> TCP keepalives are only used while a call is active.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> When no call is active there is no active h323/h225/h245 signaling,
>>> tcp
>>> >> session, or udp. The only exception is when gatekeeper is used. Then
>>> gk
>>> >> registration messages are maintained. Those are over UDP between the
>>> h323
>>> >> ep and gk.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> for a static ICT defined between two CUCM clusters there is no network
>>> >> activity without an active call.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> For the duration of an active call the tcp keepalive parameter will
>>> help.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> regards,
>>> >>
>>> >> wes
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Feb 9, 2012, at 8:13 AM, Adam Frankel (afrankel) wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Options Ping was added in 8.5(1).
>>> >>
>>> >> The parameter "Allow TCP KeepAlives For H323 " should take care of
>>> this
>>> >> for H323 ICT.
>>> >>
>>> >> -Adam
>>> >>
>>> >> ________________________________
>>> >>
>>> >> From: Abebe Amare <[email protected]>
>>> >> Sent: Thu, Feb 09, 2012 4:52:50 AM
>>> >> To: Ryan Ratliff <[email protected]>
>>> >> CC: cisco voip <[email protected]>
>>> >> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] intercluster trunk over IPSec VPN
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi Ryan,
>>> >>
>>> >> The CUCM version is 6.1.3.1000-16. Is the SIP options ping parameter
>>> >> available in this version? Where would you enable it if it is
>>> available?
>>> >>
>>> >> thanks in Advance,
>>> >>
>>> >> Abebe
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Ryan Ratliff <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> What about a SIP trunk with options ping enabled?
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> -Ryan
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Feb 8, 2012, at 7:05 AM, Abebe Amare wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi Dennis,
>>> >>
>>> >> Configuring a persistent L2L tunnel proved to be very elusive. I
>>> settled
>>> >> for running a periodic ping scheduled to keep the tunnel running.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks for your help
>>> >>
>>> >> Abebe
>>> >>
>>> >> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Dennis Heim <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> I think you answered your own question. IPSEC tunnel?s take time to
>>> bring
>>> >> up. Maybe you could tweak some of the VPN negotiating parameters, or
>>> create
>>> >> a separate L2 tunnel profile/group just for your voice that is
>>> permanent and
>>> >> does not have an inactivity timer.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Dennis Heim
>>> >> Senior Engineer (Unified Communications)
>>> >> CDW Advanced Technology Services
>>> >> 10610 9th Place
>>> >> Bellevue, WA 98004
>>> >>
>>> >> 425.310.5299 Single Number Reach (WA)
>>> >>
>>> >> 317.569.4255 Single Number Reach (IN)
>>> >> 317.569.4201 Fax
>>> >> [email protected]
>>> >> cdw.com/content/solutions/unified-communications/
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> From: [email protected]
>>> >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Abebe Amare
>>> >> Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 4:10 AM
>>> >> To: cisco voip
>>> >> Subject: [cisco-voip] intercluster trunk over IPSec VPN
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Dears,
>>> >>
>>> >> I have configured an Inter-Cluster trunk from CUCM to another site
>>> with
>>> >> CUCME. There is an IPSec L2L VPN terminating at ASA 5500 firewall on
>>> both
>>> >> ends
>>> >>
>>> >> CUCM --->ASA 5540--->Internet <---ASA 5510<---CUCME
>>> >>
>>> >> On the ASA,the IPSec tunnel is terminated after 30 minute of
>>> inactivity
>>> >> (default) which is causing a problem. When a phone in one site tries
>>> to call
>>> >> another phone in the other site there is a noticeable gap before
>>> actual
>>> >> conversation is heard over the phone. Once conversation starts, there
>>> is no
>>> >> delay or break in audio. Has anyone faced this issue?
>>> >>
>>> >> best regards,
>>> >>
>>> >> Abebe
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> 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
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> 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
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> itevomcid
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > 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/20121121/a241299d/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 13:45:16 +0000
From: Nate VanMaren <[email protected]>
To: Lelio Fulgenzi <[email protected]>, Tim Frazee <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] LDAP Custom Filter
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
This one is what I have move to. Works very well, lots of features.
http://directory.apache.org/studio/
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 5:23 PM
To: Tim Frazee
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] LDAP Custom Filter
this is the one i use. i've used this for a number of years.
http://www.novell.com/coolsolutions/tools/13765.html
it's quite old, and i don't think it's even supported anymore, but it's the one
i've been able to get working the best. and it's free. for non-commercial use
anyways.
---
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (ANNU)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
- LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
________________________________
From: "Tim Frazee" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: "Russell Chaseling"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, 20 November, 2012 7:01:58 PM
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] LDAP Custom Filter
any LDAP browser recommendations? Softerra seems to be ok for free.
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Lelio Fulgenzi
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
good to see you were able to confirm your suspicions. the LDAP browswer tools
are great, some allow you to enter LDAP filters as well which can help too.
---
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (ANNU)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
- LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
________________________________
From: "Russell Chaseling"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: "Nate VanMaren"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 5:42:54 AM
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] LDAP Custom Filter
Nope but just downloaded one and can see that contacts don?t have a
sAMAccountName field ? which means they will never sync in my scenario
Cheers
From: Lelio Fulgenzi [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>]
Sent: 20 November 2012 10:16
To: Russell Chaseling
Cc: Nate VanMaren; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] LDAP Custom Filter
Do you have an LDAP browser? Those things are fantastic and can answer a lot of
questions.
Sent from my iPhone...
"There's no place like 127.0.0.1"
On Nov 20, 2012, at 5:07 AM, Russell Chaseling
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Yep. Last name is there alright. Contacts sync fine when USerID is set to
telephoneNumber??.it has to be an issue with the LDAP Attribute for UserID. I?m
guessing that Contacts don?t have the sAMAccountName field
From: Lelio Fulgenzi [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 20 November 2012 09:55
To: Russell Chaseling
Cc: Nate VanMaren; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] LDAP Custom Filter
Do they have last names? Users without last names will not get imported.
Sent from my iPhone...
"There's no place like 127.0.0.1"
On Nov 20, 2012, at 4:41 AM, Russell Chaseling
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi,
They are enabled. I think the issue is that Contacts will never sync when the
LDAP Attribute for User ID is set to sAMAccountName because when I changed this
to telephoneNumber in my lab it then was able to sync the Contacts.
This is not an option for me so if anyone else has had any success I?d like to
know
Cheers
From: Nate VanMaren [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 20 November 2012 00:00
To: Russell Chaseling;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: RE: LDAP Custom Filter
Are you contacts ?disabled? (UserAccountControl:1.2.840.113556.1.4.803:=2)
From:
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Russell Chaseling
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 4:24 PM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: [cisco-voip] LDAP Custom Filter
Hi All,
Anyone been able to get CUCM 8.6 to sync Active Directory Contacts as well as
Users ?
Tried below but still not working:
(&(objectclass=user)(objectclass=contact)(!(objectclass=Computer))(!(UserAccountControl:1.2.840.113556.1.4.803:=2)))
Cheers
Russell
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review,
use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of
the original message.
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20121121/171dfda9/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:25:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Lelio Fulgenzi <[email protected]>
To: Nate VanMaren <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] LDAP Custom Filter
Message-ID:
<1204522316.943410.1353507941327.javamail.r...@squeaky.cs.uoguelph.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
looks good. and much more up to date. ;)
thanks for sharing.
---
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (ANNU)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
- LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nate VanMaren" <[email protected]>
To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <[email protected]>, "Tim Frazee" <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 8:45:16 AM
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] LDAP Custom Filter
This one is what I have move to. Works very well, lots of features.
http://directory.apache.org/studio/
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 5:23 PM
To: Tim Frazee
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] LDAP Custom Filter
this is the one i use. i've used this for a number of years.
http://www.novell.com/coolsolutions/tools/13765.html
it's quite old, and i don't think it's even supported anymore, but it's the one
i've been able to get working the best. and it's free. for non-commercial use
anyways.
---
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (ANNU)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
- LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Frazee" < [email protected] >
To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" < [email protected] >
Cc: "Russell Chaseling" < [email protected] >, [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, 20 November, 2012 7:01:58 PM
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] LDAP Custom Filter
any LDAP browser recommendations? Softerra seems to be ok for free.
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Lelio Fulgenzi < [email protected] > wrote:
good to see you were able to confirm your suspicions. the LDAP browswer tools
are great, some allow you to enter LDAP filters as well which can help too.
---
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (ANNU)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
- LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
From: "Russell Chaseling" < [email protected] >
To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" < [email protected] >
Cc: "Nate VanMaren" < [email protected] >, [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 5:42:54 AM
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] LDAP Custom Filter
Nope but just downloaded one and can see that contacts don?t have a
sAMAccountName field ? which means they will never sync in my scenario
Cheers
From: Lelio Fulgenzi [mailto: [email protected] ]
Sent: 20 November 2012 10:16
To: Russell Chaseling
Cc: Nate VanMaren; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] LDAP Custom Filter
Do you have an LDAP browser? Those things are fantastic and can answer a lot of
questions.
Sent from my iPhone...
"There's no place like 127.0.0.1"
On Nov 20, 2012, at 5:07 AM, Russell Chaseling < [email protected] >
wrote:
Yep. Last name is there alright. Contacts sync fine when USerID is set to
telephoneNumber??.it has to be an issue with the LDAP Attribute for UserID. I?m
guessing that Contacts don?t have the sAMAccountName field
From: Lelio Fulgenzi [ mailto:[email protected] ]
Sent: 20 November 2012 09:55
To: Russell Chaseling
Cc: Nate VanMaren; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] LDAP Custom Filter
Do they have last names? Users without last names will not get imported.
Sent from my iPhone...
"There's no place like 127.0.0.1"
On Nov 20, 2012, at 4:41 AM, Russell Chaseling < [email protected] >
wrote:
Hi,
They are enabled. I think the issue is that Contacts will never sync when the
LDAP Attribute for User ID is set to sAMAccountName because when I changed this
to telephoneNumber in my lab it then was able to sync the Contacts.
This is not an option for me so if anyone else has had any success I?d like to
know
Cheers
From: Nate VanMaren [ mailto:[email protected] ]
Sent: 20 November 2012 00:00
To: Russell Chaseling; [email protected]
Subject: RE: LDAP Custom Filter
Are you contacts ?disabled? ( UserAccountControl:1.2.840.113556.1.4.803:=2)
From: [email protected] [
mailto:[email protected] ] On Behalf Of Russell Chaseling
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 4:24 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [cisco-voip] LDAP Custom Filter
Hi All,
Anyone been able to get CUCM 8.6 to sync Active Directory Contacts as well as
Users ?
Tried below but still not working:
(&(objectclass=user)(objectclass=contact)(!(objectclass=Computer))(!(UserAccountControl:1.2.840.113556.1.4.803:=2)))
Cheers
Russell
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review,
use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of
the original message.
_______________________________________________
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
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review,
use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of
the original message.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20121121/5a9ed57f/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 14:33:47 +0000
From: [email protected]
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: [cisco-voip] MWI issues
Message-ID:
<255f57bb43f894468da6bd4f2f5dd1ce648ee...@rstn-s-mbx01.net.its.l-3com.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi everyone,
We have been having issues with MWI that seem to be sporadic. It doesn't seem
to affect all users all the time. Users' MWI is on sometimes, but when the
user dials into voicemail, they don't have any messages. I have already
confirmed there are users with this problem who don't get voicemails for any
other mailbox, so alternate extensions is the problem. The only thing that I
know that's changed recently was that TAC recommended I uncheck the following
in Unity Connection, under Telephony Integrations>Phone System.
Use Same Port for Enabling and Disabling MWIs
The problem seems to have started after this was unchecked.
CUC 8.5.1ES47.12900-47
CUCM 8.5.1.12900-7
This is an SCCP integration.
Thanks,
Bill Hendrix
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20121121/ac852d6c/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:53:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Lelio Fulgenzi <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: [cisco-voip] tracing translations easily
Message-ID:
<1154367198.947850.1353509616513.javamail.r...@squeaky.cs.uoguelph.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
anyone come up with an easy way to trace translations? we get calls to
extensions through DIDs, but I only see the extension in the CDR, not the DID.
I'd like to know what DID was called (if any).
lelio
---
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (ANNU)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
- LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20121121/f32d2b65/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:53:13 -0500
From: "Jason Aarons (AM)" <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] MWI issues
Message-ID:
<4e38db0a1959b04c8c83edcf069b53ed0d2b940...@usispclexdb01.na.didata.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
You should leave that unchecked.
Did you run a re-sync after unchecking it?
Best way to test is leave a message then http to phone web page and check if it
shows on/off. After that you have to look at traces.
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
[email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 9:34 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [cisco-voip] MWI issues
Hi everyone,
We have been having issues with MWI that seem to be sporadic. It doesn't seem
to affect all users all the time. Users' MWI is on sometimes, but when the
user dials into voicemail, they don't have any messages. I have already
confirmed there are users with this problem who don't get voicemails for any
other mailbox, so alternate extensions is the problem. The only thing that I
know that's changed recently was that TAC recommended I uncheck the following
in Unity Connection, under Telephony Integrations>Phone System.
Use Same Port for Enabling and Disabling MWIs
The problem seems to have started after this was unchecked.
CUC 8.5.1ES47.12900-47
CUCM 8.5.1.12900-7
This is an SCCP integration.
Thanks,
Bill Hendrix
itevomcid
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20121121/a0a813cb/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:56:41 +0000
From: [email protected]
To: "Jason Aarons (AM)" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] MWI issues
Message-ID:
<255f57bb43f894468da6bd4f2f5dd1ce648ee...@rstn-s-mbx01.net.its.l-3com.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Running re-sync makes the MWI turn off for the users that don't have
voicemails, but then the issue happens again later. I can leave myself a test
voicemail and the light will come on and then when I delete it, it turns off.
The problem seems very sporadic, not any particular user or time. I can also
dial the MWI on/off numbers from my phone and it turns the MWI light on/off
when I do.
Bill Hendrix
From: Jason Aarons (AM) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 9:53 AM
To: Hendrix, George (Bill) @ NSS - STRATIS; [email protected]
Subject: RE: MWI issues
You should leave that unchecked.
Did you run a re-sync after unchecking it?
Best way to test is leave a message then http to phone web page and check if it
shows on/off. After that you have to look at traces.
From:
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 9:34 AM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: [cisco-voip] MWI issues
Hi everyone,
We have been having issues with MWI that seem to be sporadic. It doesn't seem
to affect all users all the time. Users' MWI is on sometimes, but when the
user dials into voicemail, they don't have any messages. I have already
confirmed there are users with this problem who don't get voicemails for any
other mailbox, so alternate extensions is the problem. The only thing that I
know that's changed recently was that TAC recommended I uncheck the following
in Unity Connection, under Telephony Integrations>Phone System.
Use Same Port for Enabling and Disabling MWIs
The problem seems to have started after this was unchecked.
CUC 8.5.1ES47.12900-47
CUCM 8.5.1.12900-7
This is an SCCP integration.
Thanks,
Bill Hendrix
itevomcid
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20121121/bb35c216/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 16:25:00 +0000
From: abbas Wali <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: [cisco-voip] Hlog soft key
Message-ID:
<CAFdHCp61VX2NsDn+B0B9+joTgSkCwz5X308zQt12SCbbF4uP=w...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi All,
the Hlog softkey or Logged Into Hunt Group check box on the phone can log
phone in/out of the hunt group. Is there a way to log out/in from a
particular hunt group if the extension is in multiple hunt groups (I
believe there cant be but just confirming with you guys)
Thanks
--
@bbas..
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20121121/3dbd1332/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 08:25:51 -0800 (PST)
From: Rick Gilliam <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "Jason
Aarons \(AM\)" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] MWI issues
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I've noted the same periodically and compiled a list of said end users .
After trying all that you guys have mentioned hear,I've called Tac to open up a
new SR for the issue.
The problem was found in the Unity Connection server ver 8.5, A system
restoration "After Hours"was performed and have not had the problem re-occured
since.
?
Rick
________________________________
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
To: Jason Aarons (AM) <[email protected]>;
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 7:56 AM
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] MWI issues
Running re-sync makes the MWI turn off for the users that don?t have
voicemails, but then the issue happens again later.? I can leave myself a test
voicemail and the light will come on and then when I delete it, it turns off.?
The problem seems very sporadic, not any particular user or time.? I can also
dial the MWI on/off numbers from my phone and it turns the MWI light on/off
when I do.
?
Bill Hendrix
?
From:Jason Aarons (AM) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 9:53 AM
To: Hendrix, George (Bill) @ NSS - STRATIS; [email protected]
Subject: RE: MWI issues
?
You should leave that unchecked.
?
Did you run a re-sync after unchecking it?
?
Best way to test is leave a message then http to phone web page and check if it
shows on/off.? After that you have to look at traces.
?
?
From:[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
[email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 9:34 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [cisco-voip] MWI issues
?
?
Hi everyone,
?
? We have been having issues with MWI that seem to be sporadic. It doesn?t seem
to affect all users all the time.? Users? MWI is on sometimes, but when the
user dials into voicemail, they don?t have any messages.? I have already
confirmed there are users with this problem who don?t get voicemails for any
other mailbox, so alternate extensions is the problem.? The only thing that I
know that?s changed recently was that TAC recommended I uncheck the following
in Unity Connection, under Telephony Integrations>Phone System.
?
Use Same Port for Enabling and Disabling MWIs
?
The problem seems to have started after this was unchecked.
?
CUC 8.5.1ES47.12900-47
CUCM 8.5.1.12900-7
?
This is an SCCP integration.
?
?
Thanks,
Bill Hendrix
?
itevomcid
_______________________________________________
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/20121121/795278f6/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 18
*******************************************
