URI dialing uses the directory URI which is not the extension. So in my Jabber client I see 'usern...@domain.com' to call someone via directory URI. Again this is generated by the LDAP attribute. You can add additional URIs to the DN but the one in the directory is the one imported via LDAP. Following the rules of SIP URI = SMTP = UPN we map the LDAP attribute 'mail' to Directory URI so everything lines up calling via email address essentially.
I have a few vanity URIs that are assigned to the directory number. As long as it isn't a duplicated you can put anything you want. Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Lelio Fulgenzi<mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca> Sent: 12/18/2014 8:40 PM To: Josh Warcop<mailto:j...@warcop.com> Cc: NateCCIE<mailto:natec...@gmail.com>; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Expressway 8.5 is out That's good news. That will be a good start. I'm not sure about moving from to AD to LDAP as our source. There are other issues there, namely LDAP version compatibility. I'll have to see about convincing the AD team to import the vanity accounts into the domain. Even if they import them into a hidden container, I should be able to create another import config to bring those in. Another question if you don't mind. With URI dialing, which extension does it use? Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 18, 2014, at 8:14 PM, Josh Warcop <j...@warcop.com> wrote: > > That is configurable via the CUCM Ldap Directory configuration. What is > returned when searching is not related to the primary extension on the user > account. The CUCM LDAP directory configuration allows you to pick from > telephoneNumber or ipPhone. > > You're not limited to connecting only to Active Directory. I would look into > bringing in that other LDAP directory source. > > Sent from my Windows Phone > From: Lelio Fulgenzi > Sent: 12/18/2014 7:49 PM > To: Josh Warcop > Cc: NateCCIE; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net > Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Expressway 8.5 is out > > > Thanks Josh. > > Right now we create pseudo-userids in our LDAP directory for just about any > directory entry users want, e.g. College of Arts, so they can find the > extension easily. This extends to many, many non user based entries. This > allows us to have a many to one relationship directory entries to extensions. > This is what we use as our public facing telephone directory. > > Unless there is another directory search option available with jabber (over > expressway), it means that only those users that are imported via AD into > CUCM will be searchable. > > In our current deployment, only a subset of LDAP entries are populated into > AD. So we wouldn't get the correct results. > > Question: when it does return results, does it return the telephone number in > the user's AD profile? Or does it use the primary extension configured? > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Dec 18, 2014, at 6:31 PM, Josh Warcop <j...@warcop.com> wrote: > >> I'm trying to understand what you're pointing out. Expressway is an HTTPS >> proxy so there wouldn't be any LDAP sent over the Internet. So UDS serves >> that purpose so that off premise clients can search the directory. >> >> From what I'm reading this is more of your security setup and nothing wrong >> particularly with UDS. Are you saying your directory on CUCM is invalid? >> >> Direct Access isn't supported and I wouldn't recommend it. There are more >> clients to consider than endpoints that run Windows. >> >> Sent from my Windows Phone >> From: Lelio Fulgenzi >> Sent: 12/18/2014 6:14 PM >> To: NateCCIE >> Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net >> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Expressway 8.5 is out >> >> I notice contact search is limited to UDS still. I was hoping LDAP would >> have been enabled. >> >> We have scenarios where people don't want their extensions known, so through >> LDAP we publish public extensions for those people. >> >> With UDS, it looks like it reveals this information, especially if you dial >> via URI. >> >> It also seems there are are few limitations when using the expressway >> solution vs direct access. >> >> In all honest, I was hoping to deploy expressway as an on-campus solution as >> well. >> >> We don't have a split view DNS set up, which I'm gathering is what is >> necessary to deploy Expressway for MRA only for off campus. >> >> I'm just starting to read up on this stuff, so I might be off my rocker in >> some areas. :) >> >> Lelio >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Dec 18, 2014, at 5:01 PM, NateCCIE <natec...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Talking about stuff sneaking out, expressway 8.5 is on CCO. Here is the >>> release notes: >>> >>> http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/expressway/release_note/Cisco-Expressway-Release-Note-X8-5.pdf >>> >>> >>> The Expressway can now work with the Cisco DX Series endpoints, and with >>> the 8800 Series and 7800 >>> Series IP phones. >>> -Nate VanMaren >>> CCIE #7911 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> cisco-voip mailing list >>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
_______________________________________________ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
