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. CME/CUE AA Problem (Ben Story)
2. Re: vg224 sanity check (Ed Leatherman)
3. Re: vg224 sanity check (Ed Leatherman)
4. Fixing pages on cisco docwiki? (Robert Kulagowski)
5. Re: vg224 sanity check (Countryman, Edward)
6. Re: Fixing pages on cisco docwiki? (Wes Sisk)
7. Re: Fixing pages on cisco docwiki? (Gurpreet Singh Kukreja)
8. ViewMail and Outlook 2013 (Carlo Calabrese)
9. Re: VWIC2 and VWIC3 E1 PRI's on the same router?
([email protected])
10. Re: VWIC2 and VWIC3 E1 PRI's on the same router? (Abdul Salam)
11. Re: VWIC2 and VWIC3 E1 PRI's on the same router? (Jeremy Bresley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:05:38 -0500
From: Ben Story <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: [cisco-voip] CME/CUE AA Problem
Message-ID:
<CAC7zEeVHJowia5O8MtdMtK4cFC=fnwg3zfe7s5p_ylvyr2a...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I have a new CME/CUE solution that is having issues with certain inbound
callers (POTS). The callers are with a local cable company's (Mediacom)
home voice service. When they call in and press an option that would
transfer them to an IP phone they get silence and then disconnected. If
they dial an option that would send them to a mailbox on the CUE system
they get through just fine. Callers from cell phones and traditional
landlines are not having this problem.
The problem is consistent with the affected group. I just haven't figured
out why they're affected. Any ideas or troubleshooting tips will be
greatly appreciated.
--
--
Ben Story
CCSP, CCNA, CCNA Wireless, CCDA
[email protected]
@ntwrk80
http://showbrain.blogspot.com
http://rand0mw0rds.blogspot.com
"From sour-faced saints and silly devotions, good Lord, preserve us!". -- St.
Teresa of Avila
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130613/fa4b507b/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:10:09 -0400
From: Ed Leatherman <[email protected]>
To: Scott Voll <[email protected]>
Cc: Cisco VOIP <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 sanity check
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sigh.. They changed their tune, internals work ok. Just offnet are broke.
I specifically asked them to disable ECM if it got turned on, and suggested
they try some normal voice calls using the fax machine to verify that some sort
of audio is getting set up
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 13, 2013, at 9:59 AM, Scott Voll <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ed--
>
> Did any of your Faxes get replaced? Sound like you might have gotten a new
> Fax with Super G3 and ECM turned on. YMMV.
>
> Scott
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:56 AM, Ed Leatherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Good morning!
>>
>> I have a remote campus with 1 VG224 (SCCP controlled) and a handful of ATA's
>> for analog service to fax machines etc.
>>
>> IT staff on-site is complaining now that faxes on the VG can no longer send
>> faxes (they fail usually during the first page), whereas faxes via ATA are
>> ok oddly enough.
>>
>> Kicker to me is they've also stated that even faxes between two devices on
>> the VG224 are having the same issue.
>>
>> To me this along with the ATA's actually working OK seems to make a PRI or
>> network issue less likely although not ruling it out in case they are just
>> reporting things wrong to me. They also say no changes were made to gateway
>> (which I believe cause they prob don't have the login for it) or on their
>> CUCM.
>>
>> My question though for anyone familiar with these is, if two devices on the
>> gateway are talking to each other via FXS ports, is this signal just getting
>> switched natively on the gateway? Is any signal conversion happening or
>> DSP's engaged at this point, assuming there aren't any conferencing or such
>> going on?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> --
>> Ed Leatherman
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20130613/0ee49dd7/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 14:36:31 -0400
From: Ed Leatherman <[email protected]>
To: Carlo Calabrese <[email protected]>
Cc: Cisco VOIP <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 sanity check
Message-ID:
<CAFC4dsphvqgv_TkHVxbc4HmJGOZSCx=gpkqp5axy0mou2+n...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Thanks for the suggestions everyone!
They are able to make voice calls out OK with their fax machines so RTP is
at least working both ways.
Story changes the more questions I ask... Faxes between any VoIP endpoints
(VG and ATA) work OK, it seems like just faxes over their PRI's now are the
problem (but its any faxes, VG or ATA both). Their PSTN gateway is H.323,
pretty basic config but that's my next point to start looking at. The VG224
and the PRI gateway are literally right next to each other off the same L3
switch, no firewalls and ethernet interfaces are error/drop free. I asked
them to check with the local phone company to check their PRI circuits,
error counters are relatively clean on their local side though.
All this has been working up till a day ago or so, everyone swears to me
nothing has been changed :)
Time to start reading up on my Fax, Modem, and Text for IP Telephony book.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Carlo Calabrese <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Can you check your mgcp config. Do you have****
>
> Mgcp default-package fxr-package****
>
> ** **
>
> This will cause problems with faxes training up.****
>
> ** **
>
> Carlo****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* cisco-voip [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf
> Of *Ed Leatherman
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 5:57 AM
> *To:* Cisco VOIP
> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] vg224 sanity check****
>
> ** **
>
> Good morning!****
>
> ** **
>
> I have a remote campus with 1 VG224 (SCCP controlled) and a handful of
> ATA's for analog service to fax machines etc.****
>
> ** **
>
> IT staff on-site is complaining now that faxes on the VG can no longer
> send faxes (they fail usually during the first page), whereas faxes via ATA
> are ok oddly enough.****
>
> ** **
>
> Kicker to me is they've also stated that even faxes between two devices on
> the VG224 are having the same issue.****
>
> ** **
>
> To me this along with the ATA's actually working OK seems to make a PRI or
> network issue less likely although not ruling it out in case they are just
> reporting things wrong to me. They also say no changes were made to gateway
> (which I believe cause they prob don't have the login for it) or on their
> CUCM.****
>
> ** **
>
> My question though for anyone familiar with these is, if two devices on
> the gateway are talking to each other via FXS ports, is this signal just
> getting switched natively on the gateway? Is any signal conversion
> happening or DSP's engaged at this point, assuming there aren't any
> conferencing or such going on?****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks!****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> Ed Leatherman****
>
--
Ed Leatherman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130613/da5f055d/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 14:40:48 -0500
From: Robert Kulagowski <[email protected]>
To: Cisco VOIP <[email protected]>
Subject: [cisco-voip] Fixing pages on cisco docwiki?
Message-ID:
<cage0w3rzwtqeyg75zklm0d+3jppanjm_4ormeqwyjy-hkdb...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/Unified_Communications_Virtualization_Sizing_Guidelines
"Cisco Configuration Tool
Cisco Configuration Tool (need link here) "
There's no "feedback for this page" like there is in other parts of
cisco.com, and I'm not sure that anyone is looking at the "Leave a
Comment" page either.
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 15:14:39 -0500
From: "Countryman, Edward" <[email protected]>
To: "Ed Leatherman" <[email protected]>, "Carlo Calabrese"
<[email protected]>
Cc: Cisco VOIP <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 sanity check
Message-ID:
<C3B4BFD981268C48915DE5C216D800B92AF79B@AEXMV13.phnet.phroot.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
We just went through something similar at one of our sites.
This site has a large amount of analog so in order to allow feature access
through a VG224 the ports have to be configured as SCCP. What we found the
hard way is the SCCP and fax machines do not play nice.
The most reliable way to assure faxing works with Cisco is to use t38 protocol.
Trying to fax through a G711 connection is a nightmare.
However, Cisco doesn?t really support T38 on sccp (there are some contrived
config?s that tell you to use cisco NSE?s etc but we never could get that to
work.)
Ultimately, our solution was to configure the ports used for faxing as MGCP.
Also as important, configure the T38 protocol the same on both the (mgcp) VG224
and your router that has the PRI on it.
If done correctly, you will actually see the codec change from G711 once the
call connects and the fax machines start to negotiate.
Good luck
From: cisco-voip [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed
Leatherman
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 1:37 PM
To: Carlo Calabrese
Cc: Cisco VOIP
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 sanity check
Thanks for the suggestions everyone!
They are able to make voice calls out OK with their fax machines so RTP is at
least working both ways.
Story changes the more questions I ask... Faxes between any VoIP endpoints (VG
and ATA) work OK, it seems like just faxes over their PRI's now are the problem
(but its any faxes, VG or ATA both). Their PSTN gateway is H.323, pretty basic
config but that's my next point to start looking at. The VG224 and the PRI
gateway are literally right next to each other off the same L3 switch, no
firewalls and ethernet interfaces are error/drop free. I asked them to check
with the local phone company to check their PRI circuits, error counters are
relatively clean on their local side though.
All this has been working up till a day ago or so, everyone swears to me
nothing has been changed :)
Time to start reading up on my Fax, Modem, and Text for IP Telephony book.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Carlo Calabrese
<[email protected]> wrote:
Can you check your mgcp config. Do you have
Mgcp default-package fxr-package
This will cause problems with faxes training up.
Carlo
From: cisco-voip [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed
Leatherman
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 5:57 AM
To: Cisco VOIP
Subject: [cisco-voip] vg224 sanity check
Good morning!
I have a remote campus with 1 VG224 (SCCP controlled) and a handful of ATA's
for analog service to fax machines etc.
IT staff on-site is complaining now that faxes on the VG can no longer send
faxes (they fail usually during the first page), whereas faxes via ATA are ok
oddly enough.
Kicker to me is they've also stated that even faxes between two devices on the
VG224 are having the same issue.
To me this along with the ATA's actually working OK seems to make a PRI or
network issue less likely although not ruling it out in case they are just
reporting things wrong to me. They also say no changes were made to gateway
(which I believe cause they prob don't have the login for it) or on their CUCM.
My question though for anyone familiar with these is, if two devices on the
gateway are talking to each other via FXS ports, is this signal just getting
switched natively on the gateway? Is any signal conversion happening or DSP's
engaged at this point, assuming there aren't any conferencing or such going on?
Thanks!
--
Ed Leatherman
--
Ed Leatherman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130613/6397fd8e/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 16:34:42 -0400
From: Wes Sisk <[email protected]>
To: Robert Kulagowski <[email protected]>
Cc: Cisco VOIP <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Fixing pages on cisco docwiki?
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
How about:
1. login
2. top of page - "Leave a Comment"
?
-wes
On Jun 13, 2013, at 3:40 PM, Robert Kulagowski <[email protected]> wrote:
http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/Unified_Communications_Virtualization_Sizing_Guidelines
"Cisco Configuration Tool
Cisco Configuration Tool (need link here) "
There's no "feedback for this page" like there is in other parts of
cisco.com, and I'm not sure that anyone is looking at the "Leave a
Comment" page either.
_______________________________________________
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/20130613/f0a72ca2/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PastedGraphic-2.png
Type: image/png
Size: 54098 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130613/f0a72ca2/attachment-0001.png>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 16:36:56 -0400
From: Gurpreet Singh Kukreja <[email protected]>
To: Wes Sisk <[email protected]>
Cc: Cisco VOIP <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Fixing pages on cisco docwiki?
Message-ID:
<CABmpSZRKFgtapjQEJ8cHKNb03JkytC4BKqNfdTN3-pZvC=k...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Check this
http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/DocWiki:Feedback
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Wes Sisk <[email protected]> wrote:
> How about:
> 1. login
> 2. top of page - "Leave a Comment"
>
> ?
>
> -wes
>
> On Jun 13, 2013, at 3:40 PM, Robert Kulagowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/Unified_Communications_Virtualization_Sizing_Guidelines
>
> "Cisco Configuration Tool
> Cisco Configuration Tool (need link here) "
>
> There's no "feedback for this page" like there is in other parts of
> cisco.com, and I'm not sure that anyone is looking at the "Leave a
> Comment" page either.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130613/75b8c8bb/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PastedGraphic-2.png
Type: image/png
Size: 54098 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130613/75b8c8bb/attachment-0001.png>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 16:23:46 -0700
From: "Carlo Calabrese" <[email protected]>
To: "'Cisco VOIP'" <[email protected]>
Subject: [cisco-voip] ViewMail and Outlook 2013
Message-ID: <000001ce688d$1113a2a0$333ae7e0$@com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Does anyone know when Cisco is going to release ViewMail for Outlook 2013?
Or is it out already.
Our support staff is rolling out 2013 and I am catching a lot of heat
because ViewMail no longer works.
Thanks
Carlo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130613/f91e69c9/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 13:53:51 +0000
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] VWIC2 and VWIC3 E1 PRI's on the same router?
Message-ID:
<f8e0cc3253a10c4cb137f12f568dad061b4709e...@gblonz-pmsgem02.emrsn.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Forgot to mention, the gateway is a 3945 ISR-G2.
Are you sure a NM-HD would be needed for the VWIC2-2MFT-E1/T1 ?
I won't be using PVDM2s.
Cheers,
Zoltan Kelemen
ETS & Information Security
Implementation Engineering
w: +40 374 132356 | m: +40 757 039093
From: Kenneth Hayes [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 3:10 PM
To: Kelemen, Zoltan [CORP/RO]
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] VWIC2 and VWIC3 E1 PRI's on the same router?
On the ISR G2's you can install VWIC 3's with PVDM-3s on board, for the VWIC2
you will need the NM-HD to support VWIC-2's and PVDM-2's.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 7:31 AM,
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi,
I'm almost certain this would work, but if someone has actual experience, would
love your feedback:
We have some gateways with 2 VWIC3-2MFT-E1/T1 cards and plenty of PVDMs
(PVDM3-256)
Now we want to upgrade to more PRI trunks and we have a lot of spare
VWIC2-2MFT-E1/T1 cards available.
Will this work? Can VWIC3 and VWIC2 cards coexist in the same chassis, running
off the same PVDM3 module?
Thanks,
Zoltan Kelemen
ETS & Information Security
Implementation Engineering
Cluj-Napoca, Romania
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
w: +40 374 132356<tel:%2B40%20374%20132356>
m: +40 757 039093<tel:%2B40%20757%20039093>
[cid:[email protected]]
_______________________________________________
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/20130614/f4e8a2b2/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1916 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130614/f4e8a2b2/attachment-0001.jpg>
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 19:48:21 +0530
From: Abdul Salam <[email protected]>
To: "<[email protected]>" <[email protected]>
Cc: "<[email protected]>" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] VWIC2 and VWIC3 E1 PRI's on the same router?
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I think we need NM module and PVDM 2
Sent from my iPhone
On 14-Jun-2013, at 19:23, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Forgot to mention, the gateway is a 3945 ISR-G2.
>
> Are you sure a NM-HD would be needed for the VWIC2-2MFT-E1/T1 ?
>
> I won?t be using PVDM2s.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Zoltan Kelemen
> ETS & Information Security
> Implementation Engineering
> w: +40 374 132356 | m: +40 757 039093
>
> From: Kenneth Hayes [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 3:10 PM
> To: Kelemen, Zoltan [CORP/RO]
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] VWIC2 and VWIC3 E1 PRI's on the same router?
>
> On the ISR G2's you can install VWIC 3's with PVDM-3s on board, for the VWIC2
> you will need the NM-HD to support VWIC-2's and PVDM-2's.
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 7:31 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I?m almost certain this would work, but if someone has actual experience,
> would love your feedback:
>
> We have some gateways with 2 VWIC3-2MFT-E1/T1 cards and plenty of PVDMs
> (PVDM3-256)
> Now we want to upgrade to more PRI trunks and we have a lot of spare
> VWIC2-2MFT-E1/T1 cards available.
>
> Will this work? Can VWIC3 and VWIC2 cards coexist in the same chassis,
> running off the same PVDM3 module?
>
> Thanks,
> Zoltan Kelemen
> ETS & Information Security
> Implementation Engineering
> Cluj-Napoca, Romania
> [email protected]
> w: +40 374 132356
> m: +40 757 039093
> <image001.jpg>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130614/afba07b4/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 10:18:08 -0500
From: Jeremy Bresley <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] VWIC2 and VWIC3 E1 PRI's on the same router?
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
You can install VWIC2's directly into the EHWIC slots on ISR G2s, no
NM-HDs needed. If you need to use PVDM2s on an ISR G2, you need a
PVDM2-ADPTR for each one. PVDM3s install directly onto the motherboard.
Supported cards for the 3900s:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps10536/products_relevant_interfaces_and_modules.html
Jeremy "TheBrez" Bresley
[email protected]
On 6/14/2013 9:18 AM, Abdul Salam wrote:
> I think we need NM module and PVDM 2
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 14-Jun-2013, at 19:23, <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>> Forgot to mention, the gateway is a 3945 ISR-G2.
>>
>> Are you sure a NM-HD would be needed for the VWIC2-2MFT-E1/T1 ?
>>
>> I won't be using PVDM2s.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> *Zoltan Kelemen**
>> *ETS & Information Security
>> Implementation Engineering
>> w: +40 374 132356 | m: +40 757 039093
>>
>> *From:*Kenneth Hayes [mailto:[email protected]]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 3:10 PM
>> *To:* Kelemen, Zoltan [CORP/RO]
>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] VWIC2 and VWIC3 E1 PRI's on the same router?
>>
>> On the ISR G2's you can install VWIC 3's with PVDM-3s on board, for
>> the VWIC2 you will need the NM-HD to support VWIC-2's and PVDM-2's.
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 7:31 AM, <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm almost certain this would work, but if someone has actual
>> experience, would love your feedback:
>>
>> We have some gateways with 2 VWIC3-2MFT-E1/T1 cards and plenty of
>> PVDMs (PVDM3-256)
>>
>> Now we want to upgrade to more PRI trunks and we have a lot of spare
>> VWIC2-2MFT-E1/T1 cards available.
>>
>> Will this work? Can VWIC3 and VWIC2 cards coexist in the same
>> chassis, running off the same PVDM3 module?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> *Zoltan Kelemen**
>> *ETS & Information Security
>> Implementation Engineering
>> Cluj-Napoca, Romania
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> w: +40 374 132356 <tel:%2B40%20374%20132356>
>> m: +40 757 039093 <tel:%2B40%20757%20039093>
>>
>> <image001.jpg>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130614/ebb53061/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 13
*******************************************
