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: Upgrade from 8.6 to 9.1 Licensing (Erick B.)
2. Re: TDM to IP VG's SIP, H323, MGCP (Kenneth Hayes)
3. Re: Upgrade from 8.6 to 9.1 Licensing (Erick Wellnitz)
4. Re: TDM to IP VG's SIP, H323, MGCP (Jason Aarons (AM))
5. Re: TDM to IP VG's SIP, H323, MGCP (Kenneth Hayes)
6. Re: TDM to IP VG's SIP, H323, MGCP (Jason Aarons (AM))
7. Odd CUCM IP Phone Registration behaviour during Migration
(Dana Tong)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 12:33:09 -0500
From: "Erick B." <[email protected]>
To: Eric Pedersen <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Upgrade from 8.6 to 9.1 Licensing
Message-ID:
<cahsnbqyogkqwbycgj3p9mxaagbvagaw8wxk_a+ub8kqx7fe...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Well, not really (is what I was told). Lets say you did that and migrated
with 300 CUWL Pro licenses and none of the lower licenses.
Right now, ELM see's CUWL Pro but CUCM 9.1.1a does not and it assigns
phones Esseential/Enhanced/Enhanced Plus/CUWL Standard depending on type of
device and how owner id's are associated and so forth. If you don't have
any of the lower types and it borrows from CUWL downward then it is 1 CUWL
Pro license for 1 Enhanced so there is potential for missing out on some
licenses if you borrow from upper license type for everything. At least
this is my understanding from dealing with this process awhile back and
that is part of the reason they changed the migration process over to
manual where a licensing team member is involved.
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Eric Pedersen
<[email protected]>wrote:
> Did you buy all CUWL licenses or did you purchase DLUs from the CM 5/6
> days? If all CUWL you can put what you ordered into the migration tool and
> forget about the counts it comes up with.****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* cisco-voip [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf
> Of *Scott Voll
> *Sent:* 25 July 2013 8:50 AM
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] Upgrade from 8.6 to 9.1 Licensing****
>
> ** **
>
> Has anyone upgraded from 8.6 to 9.1.****
>
> ** **
>
> How does the licensing work?****
>
> ** **
>
> we currently are using DLU's and we have some concerns as to how it
> changes in 9.1.****
>
> ** **
>
> Cisco is pushing CUWL / Enterprise licensing.****
>
> ** **
>
> Scott****
>
> The contents of this message may contain confidential and/or privileged
> subject matter. If this message has been received in error, please contact
> the sender and delete all copies. Like other forms of communication,
> e-mail communications may be vulnerable to interception by unauthorized
> parties. If you do not wish us to communicate with you by e-mail, please
> notify us at your earliest convenience. In the absence of such
> notification, your consent is assumed. Should you choose to allow us to
> communicate by e-mail, we will not take any additional security measures
> (such as encryption) unless specifically requested.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130726/cf885fc2/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 14:14:14 -0500
From: Kenneth Hayes <[email protected]>
To: Eric Pedersen <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected] VOIP" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] TDM to IP VG's SIP, H323, MGCP
Message-ID: <-3934539136970475024@unknownmsgid>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I agree. SIP between your UC apps, and gateways is what I recommend. In
some cases you might need to use SCCP protocol but for the major stuff SIP
is what I recommend.
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 26, 2013, at 9:22 AM, Eric Pedersen <[email protected]>
wrote:
SIP works very well in CM 9.1. I don't know of any reason to use H.323
between CM and PRI gateways anymore. MGCP still provides the simplest
configuration but you lose all the PRI calls if the connection between the
gateway and the CM it's registered to drops for some reason.
I suggest using the same protocol for all your gateways to reduce the
likelihood of problems with things like DTMF relay and faxes.
*From:* cisco-voip
[mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>]
*On Behalf Of *Candese Perez
*Sent:* 25 July 2013 8:07 AM
*To:* [email protected] VOIP
*Subject:* [cisco-voip] TDM to IP VG's SIP, H323, MGCP
Hello All,
I am working on a new CUCM 9.1 deployment with several branch offices using
PRI's.
Reading through the SRND and a few messages on this board, I am still not
sure which protocol to use for these gateways.
I know SIP is really prevalent now, and is much easier to troubleshoot, but
not sure if there are any issues in terms of features.
Additionally, this deployment will involve several VG 224's for fax, and
analog IVR components.
Does anyone have any suggestions either way SIP, H323, or MGCP or
particular features that work better/worse using a particular protocol?
Thanks!
The contents of this message may contain confidential and/or privileged
subject matter. If this message has been received in error, please contact
the sender and delete all copies. Like other forms of communication,
e-mail communications may be vulnerable to interception by unauthorized
parties. If you do not wish us to communicate with you by e-mail, please
notify us at your earliest convenience. In the absence of such
notification, your consent is assumed. Should you choose to allow us to
communicate by e-mail, we will not take any additional security measures
(such as encryption) unless specifically requested.
_______________________________________________
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/20130726/719b5936/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 12:50:20 -0500
From: Erick Wellnitz <[email protected]>
To: "Erick B." <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Upgrade from 8.6 to 9.1 Licensing
Message-ID:
<cak0wosce+vimglwfsrx-rvtkhbfboune+7jbrcsxrmnlkmk...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
That is what I was told by our partner as well. Letting ELM decide based
on what is configured could be disasterous and in some environments
correcting the missing owner ID and primary device IDs could be
excruciating.
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Erick B. <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well, not really (is what I was told). Lets say you did that and migrated
> with 300 CUWL Pro licenses and none of the lower licenses.
>
> Right now, ELM see's CUWL Pro but CUCM 9.1.1a does not and it assigns
> phones Esseential/Enhanced/Enhanced Plus/CUWL Standard depending on type of
> device and how owner id's are associated and so forth. If you don't have
> any of the lower types and it borrows from CUWL downward then it is 1 CUWL
> Pro license for 1 Enhanced so there is potential for missing out on some
> licenses if you borrow from upper license type for everything. At least
> this is my understanding from dealing with this process awhile back and
> that is part of the reason they changed the migration process over to
> manual where a licensing team member is involved.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Eric Pedersen <[email protected]
> > wrote:
>
>> Did you buy all CUWL licenses or did you purchase DLUs from the CM 5/6
>> days? If all CUWL you can put what you ordered into the migration tool and
>> forget about the counts it comes up with.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* cisco-voip [mailto:[email protected]] *On
>> Behalf Of *Scott Voll
>> *Sent:* 25 July 2013 8:50 AM
>> *To:* [email protected]
>> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] Upgrade from 8.6 to 9.1 Licensing****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Has anyone upgraded from 8.6 to 9.1.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> How does the licensing work?****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> we currently are using DLU's and we have some concerns as to how it
>> changes in 9.1.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Cisco is pushing CUWL / Enterprise licensing.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Scott****
>>
>> The contents of this message may contain confidential and/or privileged
>> subject matter. If this message has been received in error, please contact
>> the sender and delete all copies. Like other forms of communication,
>> e-mail communications may be vulnerable to interception by unauthorized
>> parties. If you do not wish us to communicate with you by e-mail, please
>> notify us at your earliest convenience. In the absence of such
>> notification, your consent is assumed. Should you choose to allow us to
>> communicate by e-mail, we will not take any additional security measures
>> (such as encryption) unless specifically requested.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20130726/2b9c09f7/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 17:36:37 -0400
From: "Jason Aarons (AM)" <[email protected]>
To: Kenneth Hayes <[email protected]>, Eric Pedersen
<[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected] VOIP" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] TDM to IP VG's SIP, H323, MGCP
Message-ID:
<4e38db0a1959b04c8c83edcf069b53ed0d3a7c6...@usispclexdb01.na.didata.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
I would agree SIP where possible end to end creates the least amount of issues.
You might have some VG224s that want Shared Lines with SIP Phones requiring
MGCP on the VG224.
From: cisco-voip [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Kenneth Hayes
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 3:14 PM
To: Eric Pedersen
Cc: [email protected] VOIP
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] TDM to IP VG's SIP, H323, MGCP
I agree. SIP between your UC apps, and gateways is what I recommend. In some
cases you might need to use SCCP protocol but for the major stuff SIP is what I
recommend.
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 26, 2013, at 9:22 AM, Eric Pedersen
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
SIP works very well in CM 9.1. I don't know of any reason to use H.323 between
CM and PRI gateways anymore. MGCP still provides the simplest configuration
but you lose all the PRI calls if the connection between the gateway and the CM
it's registered to drops for some reason.
I suggest using the same protocol for all your gateways to reduce the
likelihood of problems with things like DTMF relay and faxes.
From: cisco-voip [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Candese Perez
Sent: 25 July 2013 8:07 AM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> VOIP
Subject: [cisco-voip] TDM to IP VG's SIP, H323, MGCP
Hello All,
I am working on a new CUCM 9.1 deployment with several branch offices using
PRI's.
Reading through the SRND and a few messages on this board, I am still not sure
which protocol to use for these gateways.
I know SIP is really prevalent now, and is much easier to troubleshoot, but not
sure if there are any issues in terms of features.
Additionally, this deployment will involve several VG 224's for fax, and analog
IVR components.
Does anyone have any suggestions either way SIP, H323, or MGCP or particular
features that work better/worse using a particular protocol?
Thanks!
The contents of this message may contain confidential and/or privileged
subject matter. If this message has been received in error, please contact
the sender and delete all copies. Like other forms of communication,
e-mail communications may be vulnerable to interception by unauthorized
parties. If you do not wish us to communicate with you by e-mail, please
notify us at your earliest convenience. In the absence of such
notification, your consent is assumed. Should you choose to allow us to
communicate by e-mail, we will not take any additional security measures
(such as encryption) unless specifically requested.
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
itevomcid
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130726/1107edbd/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:47:13 -0500
From: Kenneth Hayes <[email protected]>
To: "Jason Aarons (AM)" <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected] VOIP" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] TDM to IP VG's SIP, H323, MGCP
Message-ID: <-805302833520329406@unknownmsgid>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
With the VG224's instead of MGCP wouldn't it be easier to do it SCCP vs
MGCP because of T.38 issues with SIP?
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 26, 2013, at 4:36 PM, "Jason Aarons (AM)" <
[email protected]> wrote:
I would agree SIP where possible end to end creates the least amount of
issues. You might have some VG224s that want Shared Lines with SIP Phones
requiring MGCP on the VG224.
*From:* cisco-voip
[mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>]
*On Behalf Of *Kenneth Hayes
*Sent:* Friday, July 26, 2013 3:14 PM
*To:* Eric Pedersen
*Cc:* [email protected] VOIP
*Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] TDM to IP VG's SIP, H323, MGCP
I agree. SIP between your UC apps, and gateways is what I recommend. In
some cases you might need to use SCCP protocol but for the major stuff SIP
is what I recommend.
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 26, 2013, at 9:22 AM, Eric Pedersen <[email protected]>
wrote:
SIP works very well in CM 9.1. I don't know of any reason to use H.323
between CM and PRI gateways anymore. MGCP still provides the simplest
configuration but you lose all the PRI calls if the connection between the
gateway and the CM it's registered to drops for some reason.
I suggest using the same protocol for all your gateways to reduce the
likelihood of problems with things like DTMF relay and faxes.
*From:* cisco-voip
[mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>]
*On Behalf Of *Candese Perez
*Sent:* 25 July 2013 8:07 AM
*To:* [email protected] VOIP
*Subject:* [cisco-voip] TDM to IP VG's SIP, H323, MGCP
Hello All,
I am working on a new CUCM 9.1 deployment with several branch offices using
PRI's.
Reading through the SRND and a few messages on this board, I am still not
sure which protocol to use for these gateways.
I know SIP is really prevalent now, and is much easier to troubleshoot, but
not sure if there are any issues in terms of features.
Additionally, this deployment will involve several VG 224's for fax, and
analog IVR components.
Does anyone have any suggestions either way SIP, H323, or MGCP or
particular features that work better/worse using a particular protocol?
Thanks!
The contents of this message may contain confidential and/or privileged
subject matter. If this message has been received in error, please contact
the sender and delete all copies. Like other forms of communication,
e-mail communications may be vulnerable to interception by unauthorized
parties. If you do not wish us to communicate with you by e-mail, please
notify us at your earliest convenience. In the absence of such
notification, your consent is assumed. Should you choose to allow us to
communicate by e-mail, we will not take any additional security measures
(such as encryption) unless specifically requested.
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
[email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
itevomcid
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130726/4764cfe9/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 18:09:18 -0400
From: "Jason Aarons (AM)" <[email protected]>
To: Kenneth Hayes <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected] VOIP" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] TDM to IP VG's SIP, H323, MGCP
Message-ID:
<4e38db0a1959b04c8c83edcf069b53ed0d3a7c6...@usispclexdb01.na.didata.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
SCCP doesn't do Standards Based T.38, thus MGCP does.
From: Kenneth Hayes [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 5:47 PM
To: Jason Aarons (AM)
Cc: Eric Pedersen; [email protected] VOIP
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] TDM to IP VG's SIP, H323, MGCP
With the VG224's instead of MGCP wouldn't it be easier to do it SCCP vs MGCP
because of T.38 issues with SIP?
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 26, 2013, at 4:36 PM, "Jason Aarons (AM)"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I would agree SIP where possible end to end creates the least amount of issues.
You might have some VG224s that want Shared Lines with SIP Phones requiring
MGCP on the VG224.
From: cisco-voip [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Kenneth Hayes
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 3:14 PM
To: Eric Pedersen
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> VOIP
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] TDM to IP VG's SIP, H323, MGCP
I agree. SIP between your UC apps, and gateways is what I recommend. In some
cases you might need to use SCCP protocol but for the major stuff SIP is what I
recommend.
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 26, 2013, at 9:22 AM, Eric Pedersen
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
SIP works very well in CM 9.1. I don't know of any reason to use H.323 between
CM and PRI gateways anymore. MGCP still provides the simplest configuration
but you lose all the PRI calls if the connection between the gateway and the CM
it's registered to drops for some reason.
I suggest using the same protocol for all your gateways to reduce the
likelihood of problems with things like DTMF relay and faxes.
From: cisco-voip [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Candese Perez
Sent: 25 July 2013 8:07 AM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> VOIP
Subject: [cisco-voip] TDM to IP VG's SIP, H323, MGCP
Hello All,
I am working on a new CUCM 9.1 deployment with several branch offices using
PRI's.
Reading through the SRND and a few messages on this board, I am still not sure
which protocol to use for these gateways.
I know SIP is really prevalent now, and is much easier to troubleshoot, but not
sure if there are any issues in terms of features.
Additionally, this deployment will involve several VG 224's for fax, and analog
IVR components.
Does anyone have any suggestions either way SIP, H323, or MGCP or particular
features that work better/worse using a particular protocol?
Thanks!
The contents of this message may contain confidential and/or privileged
subject matter. If this message has been received in error, please contact
the sender and delete all copies. Like other forms of communication,
e-mail communications may be vulnerable to interception by unauthorized
parties. If you do not wish us to communicate with you by e-mail, please
notify us at your earliest convenience. In the absence of such
notification, your consent is assumed. Should you choose to allow us to
communicate by e-mail, we will not take any additional security measures
(such as encryption) unless specifically requested.
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
itevomcid
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130726/3e58b0c4/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 14:36:59 +0000
From: Dana Tong <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected] ([email protected])"
<[email protected]>
Subject: [cisco-voip] Odd CUCM IP Phone Registration behaviour during
Migration
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Good morning all,
Weird one tonight.
Customer has a CUCM version 7.1(5) with approx. 900 handsets of 7912's, 7940's
etc.
So I built up a new CUCM version 9.1(1) on new UCS hardware (vmware) and
everything looks fine. I cleaned up all the data an implemented some of the
intelligent call routing features in newer CUCM etc. Tested with some brand new
7942's out of the box and all is good.
Tonight I get onsite to perform the migration. I start with the first site.
~110 phones. Update the DHCP option 150 and reset the phones.
Now about 40 of the ~110 phones come across and register to the new CUCM ok.
This leaves some 70 phones reporting configuring IP. The DHCP is on the router,
and the router connected to the LAN via a dot1q trunk.
The registered phones are all of the 7912's and some 7940's.
Two of the phones close by are 7940's. One is registered and one is not. They
both have the same firmware. They are both on the same access switch. The
unregistered phone does not have an IP address. However the router's ARP and
DHCP has an IP address in its database. I cleared the ARP, and cleared the DHCP
bindings. Restart the phone. I see the DHCP request in the debugs and an
address get assigned but the phone still doesn't get an IP.
So I manually set an IP address on the phone. It still won't register. I set a
continuous ping to the phone and I get maybe 2% ping response. With some
response times up in the 190ms range. Weird. This is all LAN based. Check
spanning tree and that's ok. The TAC have investigated and they are stumped.
They ask me to log another fault for the switching guys. A PC behind the phone
in the voice VLAN also has perfect pings to the new CUCM. So it seems phone
related.
Anyways so I do some more troubleshooting. Roll back the DHCP option 150 and
reset all the phones. They all re-register with the old cluster no problems.
I configure a new VLAN on the switches and new sub-interface on the router.
Configure a new DHCP scope for the new range and configure this phone to use
that new VLAN. At this point I haven't added the new subnet to BGP to this
subnet cannot see the Data Centre VLANs.
The phone comes up in the test VLAN and gets an IP address ok. I can ping the
phone and have no loss.
I configure the BGP routing and now the new subnet is advertised into the
network and I can reach the CUCM.
Immediately, the phone starts dropping pings and is showing the same sporadic
response and packet loss.
I remove the subnet from BGP and now the phone is 100% responsive again. What
the???
So it seems there is an issue when the phone is trying to register to the new
CUCM. I've just checked the old cluster and noticed that this system is running
7.1(5) UNRESTRICTED. So the last upgrade which was done for this customer, it
seems someone had installed the UNRESTRICTED version. Is this affecting my
migration? The new cluster is a fresh build of UCM 9.1 straight on to new UCS
hardware. So it's a standard restricted ISO.
I know that once you go UNRESTRICTED you cannot go back. However this was not
an upgrade or backup/ restore. Remember this is a fresh build.
Anyways I'm stumped. Can you guys think of anything??? It seems to be related
the 7940 series phones. We tried another site and all of the 7912's migrated
fine but the 7940's didn't. But then again there were "some" 7940's in the HQ
site which did work.
Thanks in advance.
Cheers
Dana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130727/85c97c5e/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 117, Issue 23
*******************************************
