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. Delay in Softkeys 7975 (Steven Sarte)
2. Re: Delay in Softkeys 7975 (Erick Wellnitz)
3. Re: Delay in Softkeys 7975 (Wes Sisk)
4. Calls en't dropping via CAD (Muneeb khan)
5. Re: Delay in Softkeys 7975 (Ryan Ratliff)
6. CUCM 9 ELM Question (Mark Holloway)
7. Re: CUCM 9 ELM Question (Matthew Loraditch)
8. ccie voice to collaboration (Erick Wellnitz)
9. Re: CUBE HSRP (Nick Matthews)
10. Re: Cannot Change Fixed Feature Button (Jason Aarons (AM))
11. Re: SIP TRUNK(TELCO)---GW----CUCM 9.1 SIP Registration
(Dave Wolgast)
12. Telecommuters suggestions. (Scott Voll)
13. Re: Telecommuters suggestions. (Kenneth Hayes)
14. Re: ccie voice to collaboration (Ted Nugent)
15. Re: Calls en't dropping via CAD (Erick B.)
16. Re: ccie voice to collaboration (Mark Holloway)
17. Re: ccie voice to collaboration (Ted Nugent)
18. Re: Calls en't dropping via CAD (Ted Nugent)
19. Call goes directly on hold (Reto Gassmann)
20. Re: Call goes directly on hold (Nate VanMaren)
21. Re: Call goes directly on hold (Reto Gassmann)
22. Re: Call goes directly on hold (Nate VanMaren)
23. Re: ccie voice to collaboration (Erick Wellnitz)
24. Re: Call goes directly on hold (Erick Wellnitz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:11:30 -0400
From: Steven Sarte <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: [cisco-voip] Delay in Softkeys 7975
Message-ID:
<CAA4qg4XmgyQwLA7XHqfK_+owF5PY-57y2rbKu=+sl8pb8pr...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Has anyone seen this delay in Soft keys. User states when she answer a
call the Transfer soft keys took about 30 seconds before it showed up.
I checked port statistics for errors: no issues found.
Did replace the phone once.
Pub CPU is around 25%
Sub CPU is around 10%
Does not happen on all calls. Of course when i go it never happens.
Phone is registered is to the Pub due to geographic location of phone.
Will registering to the Sub make any difference?
Thanks
Steven
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130611/a36d7b12/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:29:04 -0500
From: Erick Wellnitz <[email protected]>
To: Steven Sarte <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Delay in Softkeys 7975
Message-ID:
<cak0wosbhfgko0wow3amtvfre98g7_bcua3s2n4zsjtzayu1...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
You may need to enable softkey trace under the Cisco CallManager traces if
you haven't already.
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Steven Sarte <[email protected]>wrote:
> Has anyone seen this delay in Soft keys. User states when she answer a
> call the Transfer soft keys took about 30 seconds before it showed up.
>
> I checked port statistics for errors: no issues found.
> Did replace the phone once.
>
> Pub CPU is around 25%
> Sub CPU is around 10%
>
> Does not happen on all calls. Of course when i go it never happens.
>
> Phone is registered is to the Pub due to geographic location of phone.
> Will registering to the Sub make any difference?
>
> Thanks
> Steven
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130611/2c259abc/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:30:12 -0400
From: Wes Sisk <[email protected]>
To: Erick Wellnitz <[email protected]>, Steven Sarte
<[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected] VOIP" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Delay in Softkeys 7975
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
enabling softkey trace will allow tracking the time differential between when
CUCM receives the answer event and when it composes the soft key set response.
If that time is reasonable then the delay is either in the network (TCP
retransmissions or an interim inspection device) or processing delay on the
phone itself. A packet capture from the back of the phone or phone debugs
would provide the next level of problem isolation. If the phone is CPU bound
then enabling extra debug might exacerbate the situation. Are phone debugs
currenty enabled? Are any apps scanning or posting XML instructions to the
phone to introduce extra load?
-Wes
On Jun 11, 2013, at 12:29 PM, Erick Wellnitz <[email protected]> wrote:
You may need to enable softkey trace under the Cisco CallManager traces if you
haven't already.
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Steven Sarte <[email protected]> wrote:
Has anyone seen this delay in Soft keys. User states when she answer a call
the Transfer soft keys took about 30 seconds before it showed up.
I checked port statistics for errors: no issues found.
Did replace the phone once.
Pub CPU is around 25%
Sub CPU is around 10%
Does not happen on all calls. Of course when i go it never happens.
Phone is registered is to the Pub due to geographic location of phone. Will
registering to the Sub make any difference?
Thanks
Steven
_______________________________________________
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/20130611/80e90309/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 23:04:38 +0500
From: Muneeb khan <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: [cisco-voip] Calls en't dropping via CAD
Message-ID:
<caoivckzkvjkbhmw9bmr2exkcgkea_81cy3v0spy7dzcerfd...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
hi,
we have just installed UCCX 8.6 and CUCM 8.5, all the things are working
fine except few below mentioned things.
1. Agents are not able to drop the calls through CAD, they had to do it
through IP Communicator.
2. Some agents goes to NOT Ready state as soon as the call hit on their
CAD.
3. Some IP Communicators aren't registering onto CUCM as they are
continuously showing "IP Configuring" onto IP Communicator.(DHCP is running
in the environment).
Thanks
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130611/f479c4ec/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 15:45:07 -0400
From: Ryan Ratliff <[email protected]>
To: Wes Sisk <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected] VOIP" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Delay in Softkeys 7975
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
The other component of this is the call state. Softkey sets are tied to the
state of the call and if there are interesting things happening on your
incoming calls this could be playing a role.
-Ryan
On Jun 11, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Wes Sisk <[email protected]> wrote:
enabling softkey trace will allow tracking the time differential between when
CUCM receives the answer event and when it composes the soft key set response.
If that time is reasonable then the delay is either in the network (TCP
retransmissions or an interim inspection device) or processing delay on the
phone itself. A packet capture from the back of the phone or phone debugs
would provide the next level of problem isolation. If the phone is CPU bound
then enabling extra debug might exacerbate the situation. Are phone debugs
currenty enabled? Are any apps scanning or posting XML instructions to the
phone to introduce extra load?
-Wes
On Jun 11, 2013, at 12:29 PM, Erick Wellnitz <[email protected]> wrote:
You may need to enable softkey trace under the Cisco CallManager traces if you
haven't already.
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Steven Sarte <[email protected]> wrote:
Has anyone seen this delay in Soft keys. User states when she answer a call
the Transfer soft keys took about 30 seconds before it showed up.
I checked port statistics for errors: no issues found.
Did replace the phone once.
Pub CPU is around 25%
Sub CPU is around 10%
Does not happen on all calls. Of course when i go it never happens.
Phone is registered is to the Pub due to geographic location of phone. Will
registering to the Sub make any difference?
Thanks
Steven
_______________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130611/8369b3bc/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 15:52:20 -0400
From: Mark Holloway <[email protected]>
To: cisco-voip VOIP <[email protected]>
Subject: [cisco-voip] CUCM 9 ELM Question
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
If I've got CUCM 9 Publisher and Subscriber nodes, plus Unity Connection, does
ELM need to know about all of them or just the Publisher and Unity Connection?
If I try to add a Subscriber node to ELM it fails. In a prior CUCM 9 thread
someone mentioned ELM only needs to know about the Publisher but I want to
verify this is actually the case. I've been searching the docs but so far I
haven't found the answer. Thanks!
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 19:54:39 +0000
From: Matthew Loraditch <[email protected]>
To: Mark Holloway <[email protected]>, cisco-voip VOIP
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 9 ELM Question
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
For CUCM it only needs to know the Publisher
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
-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-voip [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mark
Holloway
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 3:52 PM
To: cisco-voip VOIP
Subject: [cisco-voip] CUCM 9 ELM Question
If I've got CUCM 9 Publisher and Subscriber nodes, plus Unity Connection, does
ELM need to know about all of them or just the Publisher and Unity Connection?
If I try to add a Subscriber node to ELM it fails. In a prior CUCM 9 thread
someone mentioned ELM only needs to know about the Publisher but I want to
verify this is actually the case. I've been searching the docs but so far I
haven't found the answer. Thanks!
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
[email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 15:09:37 -0500
From: Erick Wellnitz <[email protected]>
To: cisco-voip <[email protected]>
Subject: [cisco-voip] ccie voice to collaboration
Message-ID:
<CAK0wOsD2C_cm=--vyry740nxzk-r5wim6txc56ktgkulshd...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Looks like Cisco will require us to take the Collaboration written to
migrate from CCIE Voice to CCIE Collaboration. Guess it could be worse.
http://www.cisco.com/web/learning/other/pop_quote.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130611/688d0c93/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:14:42 -0400
From: Nick Matthews <[email protected]>
To: Mark Holloway <[email protected]>
Cc: cisco-voip VOIP <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUBE HSRP
Message-ID:
<cam-k-nrrquu_7komth7eqza4s4lekdix2c2fm-na_syr6ww...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Best practices, it's about 1 second. There are challenges with sub-second
times in HSRP if there are more critical (routing protocol) traffic on the
same box. With hello times less than 300msec it's possible for the HSRP
process to be skipped due to single higher priority processes on the router
being able to monopolize the scheduling blocks.
That's what I understand anyways. I've tested much lower - 100-200 ms. But
in real world with other protocols on the box it's tougher to make a hard
call outside the best practices.
-nick
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Mark Holloway <[email protected]> wrote:
> Does anyone know what the lowest failover time (in milliseconds) is if you
> have two 3945-E routers running CUBE and one box fails and the other takes
> over?
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130611/5a207325/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 18:02:56 -0400
From: "Jason Aarons (AM)" <[email protected]>
To: Wes Sisk <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Cannot Change Fixed Feature Button
Message-ID:
<4e38db0a1959b04c8c83edcf069b53ed0d361bf...@usispclexdb01.na.didata.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
The workaround is to use Bulk Admin which has a Unassigned DN search similar to
Route Plan Report.
From: Wes Sisk [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 11:45 AM
To: Jason Aarons (AM)
Cc: Jonathan Charles; Ryan Ratliff; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Cannot Change Fixed Feature Button
Bug Search Tool says:
https://tools.cisco.com/bugsearch/search?kw=Column%20(dm)%20not%20found%20in%20any%20table%20in%20the%20query&srtBy=byRel&bt=custV
CSCuf96596 "Delete All Found Items" throws exception in Route Plan Report
Known fixed version:
9.001(002.10000.005)
means it will be fixed in 9.1.2 when it comes out.
Regards,
Wes
On Jun 10, 2013, at 10:00 PM, Jason Aarons (AM)
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Yeah, what's up with the DN Save trick? Wonder why it went away? Made it easy
to change a DN but keep most of the settings below. Seems to still "mostly
work"..
Speaking of 9.1.1 have you gone in Route Plan Report > Unassinged DN and
selected Delete All Found? I get an error "
"Error occurred during find. java.sql.SQLException: Column (dm) not found in
any table in the query (or SLV is undefined).
"
From: cisco-voip
[mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>]
On Behalf Of Jonathan Charles
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 8:11 PM
To: Ryan Ratliff
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Cannot Change Fixed Feature Button
Yeah, I just ended up renumbering line 1 to the new DN I needed... also, you
can't do the DN change and hit save trick any more (CCM 9.1.1)...
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Ryan Ratliff
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
The first slot has to be a line, and I'd guess that since that first line
appearance is tagged as line 1, it's locked there.
The error is telling you that any "fixed feature" button cannot be moved.
Line(1) is a fixed feature, thus you cannot move it anywhere from the first
slot.
Interestingly enough when I swap Line(2) with Line(3) and update, the Line(3)
now becomes Line(2).
If you do the same test with Line 1 (take it out, put in another line in its
place) then it can be saved.
Looks like a bug to me that you can't reorder Line(1) but you can remove it,
providing another Line remains at the top of the list.
-Ryan
On Jun 10, 2013, at 11:07 AM, Wes Sisk
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
interesting. others have found
"you cannot remove the line without adding a new feature back before saving the
change."
so maybe one part that slot must be filled and another part that the order of
operations is critical?
-Wes
On Jun 9, 2013, at 6:28 PM, Jonathan Charles
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
So, a new error message
<image.png>
"Fixed feature button(s) 1 cannot be changed. Please make sure the button
number matches the relative positions in the button list."
When I try to swap lines 2 and 1...
<image.png>
When I try to reorder the lines on a Cisco IP Communicator...
Any ideas why?
Jonathan
_______________________________________________
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
itevomcid
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[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/20130611/3b513d07/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:19:03 -0400
From: Dave Wolgast <[email protected]>
To: Binoy Baby <[email protected]>
Cc: "Cisco VOIP Newsletter - puck.nether.net"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SIP TRUNK(TELCO)---GW----CUCM 9.1 SIP
Registration
Message-ID:
<cahozw-1njsfk7raummkj1s-sujh7admnx48sgbd2bj12fok...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I suggest consulting the Cisco Interoperability Portal, where there are
tested configs posted for a number of carriers, both with CUBE involved,
and direct to CUCM.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/ns340/ns414/ns728/networking_solutions_products_genericcontent0900aecd805bd13d.html
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Binoy Baby <[email protected]>wrote:
> Dear Team,****
>
> ** **
>
> I have SIP TRUNK Provided by Telco with Credentials like IP Address,
> username, password and Domain name I have Voice gateway with CUCM,I Need to
> Setup sip configuration in my Voice gateway ,Please provide the solution
> for same ****
>
> ** **
>
> SIP Trunk Details:****
>
> ** **
>
> IP Address 192.168.1.8/24 and GW 192.168.1.6/24****
>
> Username :XXXXX****
>
> Password :XXXXX****
>
> Domain Name :XXXX.XXX****
>
> ** **
>
> CUCM Details: IP Address 192.168.20.10/24 and VGW IP 192.168.20.252/24****
>
> ** **
>
> Regards,****
>
> ** **
>
> [image: Description: Description: cid:[email protected]]****
>
> ** **
>
> *Binoy Baby***
>
> *Technical Support Engineer - N/W &** UC* ****
>
> *Intertec Systems LLC* ****
>
> PO Box 27130, Dubai, United Arab Emirates****
>
> Tel: +971 42221338 Ext. 383 | Mob: +971 554501879 | Fax: +971 4 2274937**
> **
>
> E-Mail : [email protected]****
>
> www.intertecsys.com ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> "This correspondence is for the named person's use only. It may contain
> confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality
> or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this
> correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system and
> notify the sender. You must not disclose copy or rely on any part of this
> correspondence if you are not the intended recipient."****
>
> P Think Green!!! Please consider your environmental responsibility
> before printing this e-mail.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
>
> The Information contained in this message or any of its attachments may
> be privileged and confidential and intended for the exclusive use of the
> addressee. The views expressed may not be Intertec systems policy but the
> personal views of the originator. If you have received this message in
> error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this
> message and any attachments without retaining a copy. Although this e-mail
> message has been swept for the presence of known computer viruses before
> being sent we accept no liability for any viruses or any damage resulting
> from the use of this e-mail or its contents.******
>
> This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
> --
> Dave Wolgast
> Livonia, NY
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130611/25d2da95/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 15:37:51 -0700
From: Scott Voll <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: [cisco-voip] Telecommuters suggestions.
Message-ID:
<cahgd+39mk_8ghjkd-ba9vqekokn5e5-0rxylmst6rzb6+uh...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
we are revamping our Telecommuter requirements and suggestions.
What do you use?
we are going to support n-2 for OS's... both Mac and PC.
We are using the Ram requirements off the release notes.
What are your suggested Anti virus makers?
What are your minimum BW requirements?
TIA
Scott
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130611/d9076853/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 18:49:40 -0400
From: Kenneth Hayes <[email protected]>
To: Scott Voll <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Telecommuters suggestions.
Message-ID: <-7305241827378488289@unknownmsgid>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cisco Jabber and any connect vpn client.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 11, 2013, at 6:47 PM, Scott Voll <[email protected]> wrote:
> we are revamping our Telecommuter requirements and suggestions.
>
> What do you use?
>
> we are going to support n-2 for OS's... both Mac and PC.
>
> We are using the Ram requirements off the release notes.
>
> What are your suggested Anti virus makers?
>
> What are your minimum BW requirements?
>
> TIA
>
> Scott
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 18:52:24 -0400
From: Ted Nugent <[email protected]>
To: Erick Wellnitz <[email protected]>
Cc: cisco-voip <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] ccie voice to collaboration
Message-ID:
<cahs2vytedt-7vyxmqgc7rzdcge8jk3oaje+gdyrx8buwcz2...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
It was much much worse last week before this was announced! Not sure if you
saw the the original announcement but we would have been resitting the
lab... I'll take the written any day!
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Erick Wellnitz <[email protected]>wrote:
> Looks like Cisco will require us to take the Collaboration written to
> migrate from CCIE Voice to CCIE Collaboration. Guess it could be worse.
>
> http://www.cisco.com/web/learning/other/pop_quote.html
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130611/ce31c269/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:26:33 -0500
From: "Erick B." <[email protected]>
To: Muneeb khan <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Calls en't dropping via CAD
Message-ID:
<CAHSnBQwAPAtignnEg+GCOk=uDZnoXOmbmoo=3uytbwe6oav...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
What are the detailed UCCX anbd CUCM versions? There is no UCCX 8.6 btw.
If they are using IP Communicator, make sure the device name in CUCM is all
capitals and starts with SEP for use with UCCX.
Number 3 sounds like a PC issue as the IP Communicator uses the IP address
on the PC it is installed....
Is the IP Communicator device name set to use network adapter or you
setting a specific device name to use?
Check the PC to see if there is a firewall / endpoint security application
active maybe interfering with CIPC or CAD operations.
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Muneeb khan <[email protected]> wrote:
> hi,
>
> we have just installed UCCX 8.6 and CUCM 8.5, all the things are working
> fine except few below mentioned things.
>
> 1. Agents are not able to drop the calls through CAD, they had to do it
> through IP Communicator.
>
> 2. Some agents goes to NOT Ready state as soon as the call hit on their
> CAD.
>
> 3. Some IP Communicators aren't registering onto CUCM as they are
> continuously showing "IP Configuring" onto IP Communicator.(DHCP is running
> in the environment).
>
> Thanks
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130611/37af81ec/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 16
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 21:10:10 -0400
From: Mark Holloway <[email protected]>
To: Ted Nugent <[email protected]>
Cc: cisco-voip <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] ccie voice to collaboration
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I'll second that statement. It was much worse a week ago.. Glad to see all the
current and would-be CCIE Voice candidates reach out to Cisco in a manner where
Cisco listened..
On Jun 11, 2013, at 6:52 PM, Ted Nugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> It was much much worse last week before this was announced! Not sure if you
> saw the the original announcement but we would have been resitting the lab...
> I'll take the written any day!
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Erick Wellnitz <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> Looks like Cisco will require us to take the Collaboration written to migrate
> from CCIE Voice to CCIE Collaboration. Guess it could be worse.
>
> http://www.cisco.com/web/learning/other/pop_quote.html
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130611/6c4542f1/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 17
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 22:24:02 -0400
From: Ted Nugent <[email protected]>
To: Mark Holloway <[email protected]>
Cc: cisco-voip <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] ccie voice to collaboration
Message-ID:
<CAHs2VYuqGwjy8Pa-Lyb=GGMGy1WFbt1C7cd7y8r3oBBv0zu=h...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Next time you see your CAM give them a hug... As I hear it the Channel
Account teams really brought our voices to the right people and made this
happen.
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Mark Holloway <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'll second that statement. It was much worse a week ago.. Glad to see all
> the current and would-be CCIE Voice candidates reach out to Cisco in a
> manner where Cisco listened..
>
> On Jun 11, 2013, at 6:52 PM, Ted Nugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> It was much much worse last week before this was announced! Not sure if
> you saw the the original announcement but we would have been resitting the
> lab... I'll take the written any day!
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Erick Wellnitz
> <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> Looks like Cisco will require us to take the Collaboration written to
>> migrate from CCIE Voice to CCIE Collaboration. Guess it could be worse.
>>
>> http://www.cisco.com/web/learning/other/pop_quote.html
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20130611/fbd72475/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 18
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 23:07:14 -0400
From: Ted Nugent <[email protected]>
To: Muneeb khan <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Calls en't dropping via CAD
Message-ID:
<cahs2vyua1wsfz-jxckgdgwq_ksugvr5gzysnqrgkzb31haq...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
The call control issue sounds like a JTAPI mismatch... make sure you're
running compatibile versions of CM and UCCX and that JTAPI is synced.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/voice_ip_comm/cust_contact/contact_center/crs/express_compatibility/matrix/crscomtx.pdf
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Muneeb khan <[email protected]> wrote:
> hi,
>
> we have just installed UCCX 8.6 and CUCM 8.5, all the things are working
> fine except few below mentioned things.
>
> 1. Agents are not able to drop the calls through CAD, they had to do it
> through IP Communicator.
>
> 2. Some agents goes to NOT Ready state as soon as the call hit on their
> CAD.
>
> 3. Some IP Communicators aren't registering onto CUCM as they are
> continuously showing "IP Configuring" onto IP Communicator.(DHCP is running
> in the environment).
>
> Thanks
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130611/31798522/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 19
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:28:04 +0200
From: Reto Gassmann <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: [cisco-voip] Call goes directly on hold
Message-ID:
<CAL4H0Z77KP-KoSCibcSSg+N+dYJFkA6+=opsdykzx1e22+w...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
hello group
we run a cucm 8.0(3a) and have IP Phones 7960 (Firmware 8.1.200).
Some times we have the problem, that a call goes straight on hold.
User A calls User B. User B picks up the phone and hears the MoH (Call is
on hold). User A can put the call out of hold and the call is set up and A
and B can talk.
Has any body seen this before?
Thanks
Regards Reto
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130612/aa3fa797/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 20
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:19:14 +0000
From: Nate VanMaren <[email protected]>
To: Reto Gassmann <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Call goes directly on hold
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Do you have Lync/MOC RCC enabled?
From: cisco-voip [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Reto
Gassmann
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:28 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [cisco-voip] Call goes directly on hold
hello group
we run a cucm 8.0(3a) and have IP Phones 7960 (Firmware 8.1.200).
Some times we have the problem, that a call goes straight on hold.
User A calls User B. User B picks up the phone and hears the MoH (Call is on
hold). User A can put the call out of hold and the call is set up and A and B
can talk.
Has any body seen this before?
Thanks
Regards Reto
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/20130612/a0da1769/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 21
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 14:56:25 +0200
From: Reto Gassmann <[email protected]>
To: Nate VanMaren <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Call goes directly on hold
Message-ID:
<CAL4H0Z6qjPDrgu7Y1fiA5+Fn+2x9a8q+bMz8MdSrAqtVp=q...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Yes we have lync in the backend and moc on the clients.
We Control the phones via rcc CUCM - CUPS - lync.
Am Mittwoch, 12. Juni 2013 schrieb Nate VanMaren :
> Do you have Lync/MOC RCC enabled?****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* cisco-voip
> [mailto:[email protected]<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> '[email protected]');>]
> *On Behalf Of *Reto Gassmann
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:28 AM
> *To:* [email protected] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> '[email protected]');>
> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] Call goes directly on hold****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> hello group****
>
> ** **
>
> we run a cucm 8.0(3a) and have IP Phones 7960 (Firmware 8.1.200).****
>
> Some times we have the problem, that a call goes straight on hold.****
>
> User A calls User B. User B picks up the phone and hears the MoH (Call is
> on hold). User A can put the call out of hold and the call is set up and A
> and B can talk.****
>
> ** **
>
> Has any body seen this before?****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks ****
>
> Regards Reto ****
>
>
>
> 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/20130612/327277d9/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 22
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 13:25:28 +0000
From: Nate VanMaren <[email protected]>
To: Reto Gassmann <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Call goes directly on hold
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
http://communicationsknowledge.blogspot.com/2012/03/rcc-call-automatically-put-on-hold.html
I gave up, so I do not know solutions other than those listed in the link above.
From: Reto Gassmann [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 6:56 AM
To: Nate VanMaren
Cc: Reto Gassmann; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Call goes directly on hold
Yes we have lync in the backend and moc on the clients.
We Control the phones via rcc CUCM - CUPS - lync.
Am Mittwoch, 12. Juni 2013 schrieb Nate VanMaren :
Do you have Lync/MOC RCC enabled?
From: cisco-voip
[mailto:[email protected]<javascript:_e(%7b%7d,%20'cvml',%20'[email protected]');>]
On Behalf Of Reto Gassmann
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:28 AM
To:
[email protected]<javascript:_e(%7b%7d,%20'cvml',%20'[email protected]');>
Subject: [cisco-voip] Call goes directly on hold
hello group
we run a cucm 8.0(3a) and have IP Phones 7960 (Firmware 8.1.200).
Some times we have the problem, that a call goes straight on hold.
User A calls User B. User B picks up the phone and hears the MoH (Call is on
hold). User A can put the call out of hold and the call is set up and A and B
can talk.
Has any body seen this before?
Thanks
Regards Reto
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.
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/20130612/156642b7/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 23
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 09:15:47 -0500
From: Erick Wellnitz <[email protected]>
To: Ted Nugent <[email protected]>
Cc: cisco-voip <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] ccie voice to collaboration
Message-ID:
<cak0wosd0pf-ddb80peklcofruhpqzbmsvpyhbzdc_ktsmha...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Definitely a win-win I think. I would imagine VARs/Partners had a lot to
do with this as well.
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Ted Nugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> Next time you see your CAM give them a hug... As I hear it the Channel
> Account teams really brought our voices to the right people and made this
> happen.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Mark Holloway <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> I'll second that statement. It was much worse a week ago.. Glad to see
>> all the current and would-be CCIE Voice candidates reach out to Cisco in a
>> manner where Cisco listened..
>>
>> On Jun 11, 2013, at 6:52 PM, Ted Nugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> It was much much worse last week before this was announced! Not sure if
>> you saw the the original announcement but we would have been resitting the
>> lab... I'll take the written any day!
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Erick Wellnitz
>> <[email protected]>wrote:
>>
>>> Looks like Cisco will require us to take the Collaboration written to
>>> migrate from CCIE Voice to CCIE Collaboration. Guess it could be worse.
>>>
>>> http://www.cisco.com/web/learning/other/pop_quote.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20130612/85317640/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 24
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 09:20:07 -0500
From: Erick Wellnitz <[email protected]>
To: Nate VanMaren <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Call goes directly on hold
Message-ID:
<CAK0wOsBCjXdES5fdD8QMqPkaS=DbpsfoYyrX_vLuRksjD4=e...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Saw the same issue several years back now. Never did find a stable
solution.
Ours was happening with users who had RCC/MOC, a 7975 and a 9971.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Nate VanMaren <[email protected]>wrote:
> ** **
>
>
> http://communicationsknowledge.blogspot.com/2012/03/rcc-call-automatically-put-on-hold.html
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> I gave up, so I do not know solutions other than those listed in the link
> above.****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Reto Gassmann [mailto:[email protected]]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 12, 2013 6:56 AM
> *To:* Nate VanMaren
> *Cc:* Reto Gassmann; [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: Call goes directly on hold****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Yes we have lync in the backend and moc on the clients. ****
>
> We Control the phones via rcc CUCM - CUPS - lync. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Am Mittwoch, 12. Juni 2013 schrieb Nate VanMaren :****
>
> Do you have Lync/MOC RCC enabled?****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* cisco-voip [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf
> Of *Reto Gassmann
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:28 AM
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] Call goes directly on hold****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> hello group****
>
> ****
>
> we run a cucm 8.0(3a) and have IP Phones 7960 (Firmware 8.1.200).****
>
> Some times we have the problem, that a call goes straight on hold.****
>
> User A calls User B. User B picks up the phone and hears the MoH (Call is
> on hold). User A can put the call out of hold and the call is set up and A
> and B can talk.****
>
> ****
>
> Has any body seen this before?****
>
> ****
>
> Thanks ****
>
> Regards Reto ****
>
>
>
> 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.****
>
> ** **
>
>
>
> 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/20130612/f60a9794/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
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 11
*******************************************
