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. Re: TP EX90 one way video only (Jason Aarons (AM))
2. Insert All Details > 7975 returns (Jason Aarons (AM))
3. Re: TP EX90 one way video only (Chris Ward (chrward))
4. Re: TP EX90 one way video only (Erick Wellnitz)
5. CER and Route Patterns per ELIN (Pawlowski, Adam)
6. Re: TP EX90 one way video only (Gregory Wenzel)
7. Re: CUCM Export (Ryan Ratliff)
8. Re: CER and Route Patterns per ELIN (Joe Martini)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 14:33:05 -0400
From: "Jason Aarons (AM)" <[email protected]>
To: sheref hf <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] TP EX90 one way video only
Message-ID:
<4e38db0a1959b04c8c83edcf069b53ed0d35759...@usispclexdb01.na.didata.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Which way is the video? Does the EX90 have a default route?
Your going to need either a Embedded Packet Capture or a capture off the back
of the EX90.
Sounds like a likely routing problem.
Also you need something to fixup SIP or H33 (application inspection) within
NAT.
From: cisco-voip [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
sheref hf
Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 4:27 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [cisco-voip] TP EX90 one way video only
Dear all
I have TP EX90 with real IP address; I tried to make video call with another TP
but we face an issue; they can see me but I can't
TP Ex90 ---> LAN ---->Router----> Internet <---- TP Ex90
I configured static NAT on router
// ip nat inside source static 192.168.0.50 196.2XX.X.XXX
Is there any additional configuration to solve this issue??
Thanks
BR,
Sherif Ibrahim Moahmed
Network Engineer
CCVP, CCNP
itevomcid
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130602/4056fede/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 20:25:22 -0400
From: "Jason Aarons (AM)" <[email protected]>
To: "cisco-voip ([email protected])"
<[email protected]>
Subject: [cisco-voip] Insert All Details > 7975 returns
Message-ID:
<4e38db0a1959b04c8c83edcf069b53ed0d35759...@usispclexdb01.na.didata.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>From the All Details CSV file I have;
Module 1
7916 24-Button Line Expansion Module
In the Job Scheduler error details I see;
SEPB4E9B08CDC63 ADD ON MODULE :: Error : 2304 This type of expansion module is
not supported by this device.
That mac address is a 7975 and the Device Type is Cisco 7975
I got the Module 1 details for the 7975 device from an Export All Details :),
how come it won't Import?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130602/dd3db029/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 13:30:08 +0000
From: "Chris Ward (chrward)" <[email protected]>
To: sheref hf <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] TP EX90 one way video only
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
It's most likely the NAT that is causing the issue. You may need to turn on SIP
inspection on the router so that it tries to replace the internal IP with the
external IP. Without the inspection, the other unit will be sending video to
the internal IP which it can't real.
+Chris
Unity Connection TME
From: cisco-voip [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
sheref hf
Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 4:27 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [cisco-voip] TP EX90 one way video only
Dear all
I have TP EX90 with real IP address; I tried to make video call with another TP
but we face an issue; they can see me but I can't
TP Ex90 ---> LAN ---->Router----> Internet <---- TP Ex90
I configured static NAT on router
// ip nat inside source static 192.168.0.50 196.2XX.X.XXX
Is there any additional configuration to solve this issue??
Thanks
BR,
Sherif Ibrahim Moahmed
Network Engineer
CCVP, CCNP
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130603/414bd744/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 10:43:47 -0500
From: Erick Wellnitz <[email protected]>
To: "Chris Ward (chrward)" <[email protected]>
Cc: sheref hf <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] TP EX90 one way video only
Message-ID:
<CAK0wOsCwoPhVr3ff=vn6rhmn+8qocmyopsffczq78ckowpo...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
IF it is using SIP, without some sort of firewall traversal or proxy the IP
in the SIP SDP will show your 192.168.0.50 address of the EX90 and not the
public routable address.
H323 does something similar with ip addressing higher up in the OSI layers
which causes issues with some firewalls/NAT devices.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Chris Ward (chrward) <[email protected]>wrote:
> It?s most likely the NAT that is causing the issue. You may need to turn
> on SIP inspection on the router so that it tries to replace the internal IP
> with the external IP. Without the inspection, the other unit will be
> sending video to the internal IP which it can?t real.****
>
> ** **
>
> +Chris****
>
> Unity Connection TME****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* cisco-voip [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf
> Of *sheref hf
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 02, 2013 4:27 AM
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] TP EX90 one way video only****
>
> ** **
>
> Dear all****
>
> ** **
>
> I have TP EX90 with real IP address; I tried to make video call with
> another TP****
>
> but we face an issue; they can see me but I can't****
>
> ** **
>
> TP Ex90 ---> LAN ---->Router----> Internet <---- TP Ex90****
>
> ** **
>
> I configured static NAT on router ****
>
> // ip nat inside source static 192.168.0.50 196.2XX.X.XXX****
>
> ** **
>
> Is there any additional configuration to solve this issue??****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks****
>
> BR,
> Sherif Ibrahim Moahmed
> Network Engineer
> CCVP, CCNP****
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130603/6957ea9b/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 11:47:24 -0400
From: "Pawlowski, Adam" <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: [cisco-voip] CER and Route Patterns per ELIN
Message-ID:
<1361b9676b9a41448eb672b89aa7731f19ed6c3...@mbccr5.itorg.ad.buffalo.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I'm going over our CER installation in preparation of Bridge upgrade to 9.0(2)
from 7.1(1a). This program looks to be pretty simplistic, though the amount of
administrative data is a pain to set up initially. What I'm a bit confused on
is the directions or indications that each ELIN needs a unique route pattern.
In the 9.0 admin guide it no longer seems to specify trying to bother with
transforming the called number since it will be presented by CER. In the 7
guide it does, but works fine without this anyways.
My question here is, though, if we've a pile of ELINs going to the same PSAP
with the same access number from the same gateway/rl/etc, why bother creating
route patterns for each thing? It seems like it just makes it more of a pain
but doesn't actually accomplish anything. I've tested this, and it seems to
work alright, as long as you fill in the ELIN correctly in CER with the proper
digits to facilitate the return call. Am I missing something?
Thanks,
Adam P
SUNYAB
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 15:52:02 +0000
From: Gregory Wenzel <[email protected]>
To: Erick Wellnitz <[email protected]>, "Chris Ward (chrward)"
<[email protected]>
Cc: sheref hf <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] TP EX90 one way video only
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I have been watching these emails fly by and don't quite understand. I recently
finished a project where we sold the client Cisco TMS, Cisco VCS and Cisco
Expressway, but we had to purchase the dual-nic option to provide the dual nic
to provide the traversal to non-traversal calls.
From: cisco-voip [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Erick
Wellnitz
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 11:44 AM
To: Chris Ward (chrward)
Cc: sheref hf; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] TP EX90 one way video only
IF it is using SIP, without some sort of firewall traversal or proxy the IP in
the SIP SDP will show your 192.168.0.50 address of the EX90 and not the public
routable address.
H323 does something similar with ip addressing higher up in the OSI layers
which causes issues with some firewalls/NAT devices.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Chris Ward (chrward)
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
It's most likely the NAT that is causing the issue. You may need to turn on SIP
inspection on the router so that it tries to replace the internal IP with the
external IP. Without the inspection, the other unit will be sending video to
the internal IP which it can't real.
+Chris
Unity Connection TME
From: cisco-voip
[mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>]
On Behalf Of sheref hf
Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 4:27 AM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: [cisco-voip] TP EX90 one way video only
Dear all
I have TP EX90 with real IP address; I tried to make video call with another TP
but we face an issue; they can see me but I can't
TP Ex90 ---> LAN ---->Router----> Internet <---- TP Ex90
I configured static NAT on router
// ip nat inside source static 192.168.0.50 196.2XX.X.XXX
Is there any additional configuration to solve this issue??
Thanks
BR,
Sherif Ibrahim Moahmed
Network Engineer
CCVP, CCNP
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
This message w/attachments (message) is solely for the use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or
proprietary. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender,
and then please delete and destroy all copies and attachments, and be advised
that any review or dissemination of, or the taking of any action in reliance
on, the information contained in or attached to this message is prohibited.
Unless specifically indicated, this message is not an offer to sell or a
solicitation of any products.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130603/445e9c5c/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 11:56:23 -0400
From: Ryan Ratliff <[email protected]>
To: Matthew Loraditch <[email protected]>
Cc: 'Cisco-voip' <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM Export
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
More specifics on the jump upgrade will come when 9.2(1) is released. One of
the things that will change is that you won't need to get a license to proceed
with your upgrade to 9.x. The entire purpose of the jump is to avoid
customers using a spare MCS server to bridge between 6.x/7.x and 9.x.
-Ryan
On May 31, 2013, at 11:10 AM, Matthew Loraditch
<[email protected]> wrote:
Jump will be allowing 6.1.5 and 7.1.5 to be installed in VMWare, thus allowing
you to not have to upgrade a production cluster to 8.0.3. before going to 9.1
I haven?t gotten a clear answer yet on what they are actually doing to make
this work any differently than it functionally (but not supported) does now.
Matthew G. Loraditch ? CCNP-Voice, CCNA-R&S, CCDA
1965 Greenspring Drive
Timonium, MD 21093
voice. 410.252.8830
fax. 410.252.9284
Twitter | Facebook | Website | Email Support
From: cisco-voip [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Russell Chaseling
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 11:01 AM
To: Nate VanMaren; 'Cisco-voip'
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM Export
Cheers
I suspected this might the case with BAT files between the two. What is a
?jump? upgrade?
From: Nate VanMaren [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 31 May 2013 15:52
To: Russell Chaseling; 'Cisco-voip'
Subject: RE: CUCM Export
The formats are different, so you will spend a very very long time fixing the
bat csv files between the versions.
You might want to talk to your cisco se about ?jump? upgrades, I think they?d
fit your situation better.
Thanks,
-Nate
From: cisco-voip [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Russell Chaseling
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 7:01 AM
To: 'Cisco-voip'
Subject: [cisco-voip] CUCM Export
Hi all,
Have a query regarding building a Call Manager from scratch using a BAT export
from another. Basically have to upgrade a 6.1.3 cluster on hardware to 9.1 an
VMware. This site is a 24/7 operation using Extension Mobility. To do the
upgrade it will need to be in 3 steps?..upgrade 6.1.3 to 8.0.3?.backup to
VMware?.refresh upgrade to 9.1. This is going to cause more outages than the
site can tolerate.
My question is can anyone see any issues with taking a BAT Export of the config
on 6.13 and then importing it on the a new build of 9.1 with same IP details /
Hostname ? then making sure all configuration is the same between the two and
unplugging old and plugging in new?
1) I would assume all user / application passwords / PINs would be lost
2) Possible certificate issues (but as verion 6 doesn?t have Security by
Default) should be ok?
Anyone done an upgrade like this?
Thanks
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130603/6d38dbe2/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 11:58:04 -0400
From: Joe Martini <[email protected]>
To: "Pawlowski, Adam" <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CER and Route Patterns per ELIN
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
You're not missing anything Adam. If your calls are going out the same
gateway, have the same call back number (ELIN), and are at the same physical
location you can use just one route pattern. The PSAP (911 location) uses the
calling number (ELIN) to lookup your address.
Joe
On Jun 3, 2013, at 11:47 AM, "Pawlowski, Adam" <[email protected]> wrote:
I'm going over our CER installation in preparation of Bridge upgrade to 9.0(2)
from 7.1(1a). This program looks to be pretty simplistic, though the amount of
administrative data is a pain to set up initially. What I'm a bit confused on
is the directions or indications that each ELIN needs a unique route pattern.
In the 9.0 admin guide it no longer seems to specify trying to bother with
transforming the called number since it will be presented by CER. In the 7
guide it does, but works fine without this anyways.
My question here is, though, if we've a pile of ELINs going to the same PSAP
with the same access number from the same gateway/rl/etc, why bother creating
route patterns for each thing? It seems like it just makes it more of a pain
but doesn't actually accomplish anything. I've tested this, and it seems to
work alright, as long as you fill in the ELIN correctly in CER with the proper
digits to facilitate the return call. Am I missing something?
Thanks,
Adam P
SUNYAB
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
[email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
[email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
------------------------------
End of cisco-voip Digest, Vol 116, Issue 3
******************************************
