Re: [cisco-voip] Carrier PSTN PRI limit incoming to DID?
I'm thinking a specific dial peer match with hunstop enabled and a max-conn 10. Or do you want to avoid gateway changes? On Wednesday, September 10, 2014, Jason Aarons (AM) jason.aar...@dimensiondata.com wrote: Can the Bells etc limit on the class 5 switch the number of simul calls to a DID coming into my PRI NI2 VWIC2-2MFT-T1/E1? I only want 10 calls to 770-525-, but any other DID allow unlimited calls? Jason Aarons Consultant Dimension Data +1-904-338-3245 ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] Limiting concurrent video
There are two types of video location bandwidth , regular video and immersive. Different values for each pool. Still haven't found a concrete resource that lists which endpoints support immersive type or if you choose video type on sip profile applied to endpoint and it uses that ? The issue (challenge?) I'm working on scheme for is how to reserve bandwidth for actual bigger telepresence rooms vs desktop video from someone's desk phone / jabber at same location without having separate location (bandwidth pools) for both. Don 't want 10 people on video calls on their desk phone using all video bandwidth then people with scheduled telepresence meeting on bigger dedicated unit in conference room not able to do their call because others are using up all the bandwidth . A couple solutions , not ideal .. Reserve large amount of bandwidth for the conference room with big unit and put desktop video devices in Lower bandwidth location and set it to low value ... So there is b/w available for the conference room unit And it'll work when people use it. But if you have Lower b/w for desk units not many people will get video calls.. Almost need a way to be able to bump active desktop video calls to audio only when a bigger dedicated telepresence unit places a call so it is able to do its job. Sent from my iPhone On Sep 10, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Jason Aarons (AM) jason.aar...@dimensiondata.com wrote: Ok sorry that was a brain fart. Duh! Pre 9.x the Hub and Spoke was assumed by CUCM Locations CAC. With 9x we have the new Enhanced Location Call Admission Control. LBM Group Locations Links/Weights From: bmead...@gmail.com [mailto:bmead...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Brian Meade Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:19 AM To: Jason Aarons (AM) Cc: cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Limiting concurrent video You should be able to use Location-based CAC for the Video calls. You can set a total video bandwidth there. On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Jason Aarons (AM) jason.aar...@dimensiondata.com wrote: 1. Is there a way to limit concurrent video call configuration on CUCM and network side across WAN in CUCM 10.x? Does RSVP or SIP RSVP pre-conditions support limiting concurrent video between clusters? Or the WAN? From what I can tell the answer is no. Endpoints are SCCP/9971s. I can set the Region information but that limits per call. Can I say I only want 384k h264 video calls to use up to a total of 10MB. And let cucm keep track of the bandwidth being used? Or for video am I limited to QoS in the WAN routers? Jason Aarons Consultant Dimension Data +1-904-338-3245 ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip itevomcid ___ 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
[cisco-voip] EWS Limits Throttling Policy
Folks: I'm hoping someone can share their experience with the Cisco recommended method for removing EWS limits on Exchange 2010 SP2 RU4 and higher. In earlier releases of Ex2010 the process of setting a throttling policy applied only to the UM service account, and any throttling performed would be applied to that service account and not to the target mailbox. Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect, but with E2010 SP2 RU4 and higher, the policy is to be applied to every target mailbox, which seems like it would impact all other EWS applications impersonating these target mailboxes. Removing EWS Limits from Exchange 2010 SP2 RU4 and Later Microsoft has enabled the client throttling policy feature by default. If there is no throttling policy already configured, Microsoft Exchange applies a default policy to all users. The default throttling policy is tailored for end user's load and not for an enterprise application like, Cisco Unity Connection using impersonation. If any Cisco Unity Connection users who are configured for unified messaging have mailboxes in Exchange 2010, configure the Exchange 2010 EWS limits for the unified messaging users mailbox by creating and applying a new mailbox policy to the unified messaging user mailbox account. If you do not configure EWS limits, messages may not be synchronized, and status changes (for example, from unread to read), changes to the subject line, and changes to the priority may not be replicated. In addition, attempts to access Exchange calendars and contacts may fail. The MS KB referring to the throttling policy change: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2713371 Perhaps my understanding is wrong, but it seems like a backwards move. Has anyone seen any adverse effects of applying the Cisco recommended throttling values as the system default? Perhaps any problems where applying the throttling policy to the target mailbox impacts other EWS apps like BlackBerry Enterprise? Are you applying the throttling policy for every single UM enabled mailbox, individually, via management shell? Thanks! - Dan ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] Limiting concurrent video
I had a failed reply attempt (long story, my email address is a hint), and I mentioned to Jason that by default, CUCM will combine Immersive calls with desktop video calls into the same video bandwidth pool. But, starting with CUCM version 9 (I believe), there is a service parameter under regions and locations which allows you to change from true to false, so that this doesn't have to happen. Just pop open CM Svc params and CTRL+F for Immersive. I'm on my phone or I'd copy paste the name for you. My understanding is that immersive calls are any DC, EX, SX, etc device registered to CUCM. However, this page would maybe disagree with that. http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/srnd/collab09/clb09/endpnts.html On Thursday, September 11, 2014, Erick erick...@gmail.com wrote: There are two types of video location bandwidth , regular video and immersive. Different values for each pool. Still haven't found a concrete resource that lists which endpoints support immersive type or if you choose video type on sip profile applied to endpoint and it uses that ? The issue (challenge?) I'm working on scheme for is how to reserve bandwidth for actual bigger telepresence rooms vs desktop video from someone's desk phone / jabber at same location without having separate location (bandwidth pools) for both. Don 't want 10 people on video calls on their desk phone using all video bandwidth then people with scheduled telepresence meeting on bigger dedicated unit in conference room not able to do their call because others are using up all the bandwidth . A couple solutions , not ideal .. Reserve large amount of bandwidth for the conference room with big unit and put desktop video devices in Lower bandwidth location and set it to low value ... So there is b/w available for the conference room unit And it'll work when people use it. But if you have Lower b/w for desk units not many people will get video calls.. Almost need a way to be able to bump active desktop video calls to audio only when a bigger dedicated telepresence unit places a call so it is able to do its job. Sent from my iPhone On Sep 10, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Jason Aarons (AM) jason.aar...@dimensiondata.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jason.aar...@dimensiondata.com'); wrote: Ok sorry that was a brain fart. Duh! Pre 9.x the Hub and Spoke was assumed by CUCM Locations CAC. With 9x we have the new Enhanced Location Call Admission Control. LBM Group Locations Links/Weights *From:* bmead...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bmead...@gmail.com'); [ mailto:bmead...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bmead...@gmail.com');] *On Behalf Of *Brian Meade *Sent:* Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:19 AM *To:* Jason Aarons (AM) *Cc:* cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cisco-voip@puck.nether.net');) *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Limiting concurrent video You should be able to use Location-based CAC for the Video calls. You can set a total video bandwidth there. On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Jason Aarons (AM) jason.aar...@dimensiondata.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jason.aar...@dimensiondata.com'); wrote: 1. Is there a way to limit concurrent video call configuration on CUCM and network side across WAN in CUCM 10.x? Does RSVP or SIP RSVP pre-conditions support limiting concurrent video between clusters? Or the WAN? From what I can tell the answer is no. Endpoints are SCCP/9971s. I can set the Region information but that limits per call. Can I say I only want 384k h264 video calls to use up to a total of 10MB. And let cucm keep track of the bandwidth being used? Or for video am I limited to QoS in the WAN routers? Jason Aarons Consultant Dimension Data +1-904-338-3245 ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cisco-voip@puck.nether.net'); https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip itevomcid ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
Re: [cisco-voip] EWS Limits Throttling Policy
I've successfully used the 'paged view functionality' on the later versions of Connections that works around this issue by staying under the EWS default limits. http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/connection/10x/unified_messaging/guide/10xcucumgx/10xcucumg020.html#83993 On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Daniel Pagan dpa...@fidelus.com wrote: Folks: I’m hoping someone can share their experience with the Cisco recommended method for removing EWS limits on Exchange 2010 SP2 RU4 and higher. In earlier releases of Ex2010 the process of setting a throttling policy applied only to the UM service account, and any throttling performed would be applied to that service account and not to the target mailbox. Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect, but with E2010 SP2 RU4 and higher, the policy is to be applied to every target mailbox, which seems like it would impact all other EWS applications impersonating these target mailboxes. *Removing EWS Limits from Exchange 2010 SP2 RU4 and Later* Microsoft has enabled the client throttling policy feature by default. If there is no throttling policy already configured, Microsoft Exchange applies a default policy to all users. The default throttling policy is tailored for end user's load and not for an enterprise application like, Cisco Unity Connection using impersonation. If any Cisco Unity Connection users who are configured for unified messaging have mailboxes in Exchange 2010, configure the Exchange 2010 EWS limits for the unified messaging users mailbox by creating and applying a new mailbox policy to the unified messaging user mailbox account. If you do not configure EWS limits, messages may not be synchronized, and status changes (for example, from unread to read), changes to the subject line, and changes to the priority may not be replicated. In addition, attempts to access Exchange calendars and contacts may fail. *The MS KB referring to the throttling policy change*: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2713371 Perhaps my understanding is wrong, but it seems like a backwards move. Has anyone seen any adverse effects of applying the Cisco recommended throttling values as the system default? Perhaps any problems where applying the throttling policy to the target mailbox impacts other EWS apps like BlackBerry Enterprise? Are you applying the throttling policy for every single UM enabled mailbox, individually, via management shell? Thanks! - Dan ___ 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
[cisco-voip] Jabber/ Phone DND
Is there a reason why DND on an IP Phone does not show as DND on a jabber client ? All other states are working except for DND Cheers Leslie ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] EWS Limits Throttling Policy
Thanks – I noticed this as well and the preceding statement under the Exchange 2010 SP2 RU4 section made me question the page view function when I first reviewed it, but it does seem to act as a solution in this case. I reviewed a few other articles where paged view functionality is mentioned and it appears to be helpful in this situation. For others who might encounter this thread in the future… In addition to the article Justin provided: Enhancement Defect: https://tools.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCtz20281 Unity SU4 ReadMe – mentions the addition of the page view function: http://www.cisco.com/web/software/282074295/82/862asu4cucrm.pdf Neat article explaining the details and providing examples behind page searches and the EWS API: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/office/dd633698(v=exchg.80).aspx Thanks again for the tip, Justin - Dan From: Justin Steinberg [mailto:jsteinb...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 11:08 AM To: Daniel Pagan Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] EWS Limits Throttling Policy I've successfully used the 'paged view functionality' on the later versions of Connections that works around this issue by staying under the EWS default limits. http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/connection/10x/unified_messaging/guide/10xcucumgx/10xcucumg020.html#83993 On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Daniel Pagan dpa...@fidelus.commailto:dpa...@fidelus.com wrote: Folks: I’m hoping someone can share their experience with the Cisco recommended method for removing EWS limits on Exchange 2010 SP2 RU4 and higher. In earlier releases of Ex2010 the process of setting a throttling policy applied only to the UM service account, and any throttling performed would be applied to that service account and not to the target mailbox. Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect, but with E2010 SP2 RU4 and higher, the policy is to be applied to every target mailbox, which seems like it would impact all other EWS applications impersonating these target mailboxes. Removing EWS Limits from Exchange 2010 SP2 RU4 and Later Microsoft has enabled the client throttling policy feature by default. If there is no throttling policy already configured, Microsoft Exchange applies a default policy to all users. The default throttling policy is tailored for end user's load and not for an enterprise application like, Cisco Unity Connection using impersonation. If any Cisco Unity Connection users who are configured for unified messaging have mailboxes in Exchange 2010, configure the Exchange 2010 EWS limits for the unified messaging users mailbox by creating and applying a new mailbox policy to the unified messaging user mailbox account. If you do not configure EWS limits, messages may not be synchronized, and status changes (for example, from unread to read), changes to the subject line, and changes to the priority may not be replicated. In addition, attempts to access Exchange calendars and contacts may fail. The MS KB referring to the throttling policy change: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2713371 Perhaps my understanding is wrong, but it seems like a backwards move. Has anyone seen any adverse effects of applying the Cisco recommended throttling values as the system default? Perhaps any problems where applying the throttling policy to the target mailbox impacts other EWS apps like BlackBerry Enterprise? Are you applying the throttling policy for every single UM enabled mailbox, individually, via management shell? Thanks! - Dan ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.netmailto: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
Re: [cisco-voip] Jabber/ Phone DND
I have two jabber end points with ip phones as well. User A puts his desk phone into DND, this presence state is not showing on his or other users Jabber clients. However if User A puts their Jabber into DND the desk phone will go into DND and since jabber was put into DND presence is shown. I think it would have to so with shared lines and DND. If you have shared lines and place one into DND the other still ring and not show that one is in DND From: bmead...@gmail.com [mailto:bmead...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Brian Meade Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 9:03 AM To: Leslie Meade Cc: cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Jabber/ Phone DND Are you saying that a shared line on Jabber isn't changing to DND when the IP Phone goes DND? Or User B on Jabber observing User A doesn't see User A go Busy when User A's IP Phone is set to DND? On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Leslie Meade leslie.me...@lvs1.commailto:leslie.me...@lvs1.com wrote: Is there a reason why DND on an IP Phone does not show as DND on a jabber client ? All other states are working except for DND Cheers Leslie ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.netmailto: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
Re: [cisco-voip] EWS Limits Throttling Policy
Hoping to get some more detail on this… Does anyone know if the value for “pvalue” in the command below represents the EWS pageSize parameter? run cuc dbquery unitydirdb execute procedure csp_ConfigurationModify(pFullName='System.Messaging.MbxSynch.MbxSynchVoiceMailCountLimit', pvalue=newvalue The UM guide says: ”new value specifies the value of the voicemails count limit that you can view after the paging parameter is enabled. Unity Connection by default manages the first 25000 voice messages per mailbox that avoid any delay in message synchronization between Unity Connection and Exchange server.” It seems a voice message count of 25,000 is rather extreme, even when including receipts. Should this article be referring to message and item count instead of voicemails? Does the pvalue=”value” represent the number of results being requested by Unity via EWS? If so, then is it correct to say the default pageSize value is 25,000, which represents total results per page, and includes more than just voice messages? Any detailed clarification would be great. This isn’t an issue, only trying to gather more information on Unity’s paged view operation. Thanks - Dan From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Daniel Pagan Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 11:48 AM To: Justin Steinberg Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] EWS Limits Throttling Policy Thanks – I noticed this as well and the preceding statement under the Exchange 2010 SP2 RU4 section made me question the page view function when I first reviewed it, but it does seem to act as a solution in this case. I reviewed a few other articles where paged view functionality is mentioned and it appears to be helpful in this situation. For others who might encounter this thread in the future… In addition to the article Justin provided: Enhancement Defect: https://tools.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCtz20281 Unity SU4 ReadMe – mentions the addition of the page view function: http://www.cisco.com/web/software/282074295/82/862asu4cucrm.pdf Neat article explaining the details and providing examples behind page searches and the EWS API: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/office/dd633698(v=exchg.80).aspx Thanks again for the tip, Justin - Dan From: Justin Steinberg [mailto:jsteinb...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 11:08 AM To: Daniel Pagan Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.netmailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] EWS Limits Throttling Policy I've successfully used the 'paged view functionality' on the later versions of Connections that works around this issue by staying under the EWS default limits. http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/connection/10x/unified_messaging/guide/10xcucumgx/10xcucumg020.html#83993 On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Daniel Pagan dpa...@fidelus.commailto:dpa...@fidelus.com wrote: Folks: I’m hoping someone can share their experience with the Cisco recommended method for removing EWS limits on Exchange 2010 SP2 RU4 and higher. In earlier releases of Ex2010 the process of setting a throttling policy applied only to the UM service account, and any throttling performed would be applied to that service account and not to the target mailbox. Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect, but with E2010 SP2 RU4 and higher, the policy is to be applied to every target mailbox, which seems like it would impact all other EWS applications impersonating these target mailboxes. Removing EWS Limits from Exchange 2010 SP2 RU4 and Later Microsoft has enabled the client throttling policy feature by default. If there is no throttling policy already configured, Microsoft Exchange applies a default policy to all users. The default throttling policy is tailored for end user's load and not for an enterprise application like, Cisco Unity Connection using impersonation. If any Cisco Unity Connection users who are configured for unified messaging have mailboxes in Exchange 2010, configure the Exchange 2010 EWS limits for the unified messaging users mailbox by creating and applying a new mailbox policy to the unified messaging user mailbox account. If you do not configure EWS limits, messages may not be synchronized, and status changes (for example, from unread to read), changes to the subject line, and changes to the priority may not be replicated. In addition, attempts to access Exchange calendars and contacts may fail. The MS KB referring to the throttling policy change: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2713371 Perhaps my understanding is wrong, but it seems like a backwards move. Has anyone seen any adverse effects of applying the Cisco recommended throttling values as the system default? Perhaps any problems where applying the throttling policy to the target mailbox impacts other EWS apps like BlackBerry Enterprise? Are you applying the throttling policy for every single UM enabled mailbox,
Re: [cisco-voip] Jabber/ Phone DND
Are you saying that a shared line on Jabber isn't changing to DND when the IP Phone goes DND? Or User B on Jabber observing User A doesn't see User A go Busy when User A's IP Phone is set to DND? On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Leslie Meade leslie.me...@lvs1.com wrote: Is there a reason why DND on an IP Phone does not show as DND on a jabber client ? All other states are working except for DND Cheers Leslie ___ 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
[cisco-voip] SME Codec Issue
We have an SME design, so leaf clusters connected to an SME via SIP. The SIP trunks go to the carrier and those terminate on the SME. The carrier requires that regardless of the codec that g.711 is an option. Any thoughts on how to make SME always advertise g.711 as an option? Dennis Heim | Collaboration Solutions Architect World Wide Technology, Inc. | +1 314-212-1814 [cid:image001.png@01CFCDC8.AC6D6F00]https://twitter.com/CollabSensei [cid:image002.png@01CFCDC8.AC6D6F00]xmpp:dennis.h...@wwt.com[cid:image003.png@01CFCDC8.AC6D6F00]tel:+13142121814[cid:image004.png@01CFCDC8.AC6D6F00]sip:dennis.h...@wwt.com ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] Cisco SRV Record (_cisco-phone-http)
I think they're just for Jabber at this point. I could see it being an option in the future but everyone would have to worry about handing out the right domain name to their IP phones for it to work. Just easier to pass along option 150 in DHCP I think. Jabber is an exception since it usually runs on the data VLAN where most people don't want to add option 150. Brian On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Heim, Dennis dennis.h...@wwt.com wrote: I saw these SRV records in a Jabber lab (_cisco-phone-http and _cisco-phone-tftp), does anyone know if those will replace the option 150 on hard phones? *Dennis Heim | Collaboration Solutions Architect* World Wide Technology, Inc. | +1 314-212-1814 [image: twitter] https://twitter.com/CollabSensei [image: chat][image: Phone] +13142121814[image: video] ___ 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
