Re: [cisco-voip] firefox upgrade causing issues with CUCM CCMadmin page
Here is the Cisco security advisory for the OpenSSL flaw found in June/2015 Long, Long list of products affected: http://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20150612-openssl -Thanks, Ryan From: ryanh...@outlook.com To: dennis.h...@wwt.com; wo...@justfamily.org; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] firefox upgrade causing issues with CUCM CCMadmin page Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 15:55:04 -0400 Here is a good explanation of the issue and how to work around it: http://eltonoverip.com/blog/2015/07/firefox-39-0-ssl-error-weak-ephemeral-diffie-hellman-key/ From: dennis.h...@wwt.com To: wo...@justfamily.org; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 19:53:09 + Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] firefox upgrade causing issues with CUCM CCMadmin page There is a parameter for those the keys that you need to toggle to disable and then it will work. Not sure of the true impact of that, but that is what I changed. Dennis Heim | Emerging Technology Architect (Collaboration) World Wide Technology, Inc. | +1 314-212-1814 “There is a fine line between Wrong and Visionary. Unfortunately, you have to be a visionary to see it. – Sheldon Cooper Click here to join me in my Collaboration Meeting Room From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Charles Goldsmith Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 3:50 PM To: voip puck Subject: [cisco-voip] firefox upgrade causing issues with CUCM CCMadmin page Getting this error with Firefox 39 An error occurred during a connection to 10.52.122.26. SSL received a weak ephemeral Diffie-Hellman key in Server Key Exchange handshake message. (Error code: ssl_error_weak_server_ephemeral_dh_key) The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because the authenticity of the received data could not be verified. Please contact the website owners to inform them of this problem. I've seen this on 8.6.2 and 9.1.2, the two 10.5.x systems I have access to have 3rd party certs, and they both work fine. The 8.x and 9.x systems do not have 3rd party, just internally signed. Anyone else seeing this and know a work around? I detest using IE or Safari for CUCM work. ___ 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
Re: [cisco-voip] Cisco CME
Hi Sreekanth, Thanks for your reply. I managed to get this one sorted the next day, just needed a good night’s sleep. I wasn’t using a loopback IP address under the dial-peer’s “session target” which seemed to be causing the issue. Regards, Quenten From: Sreekanth Narayanan [mailto:sknt...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, 8 July 2015 4:25 PM To: Quenten Grasso Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Cisco CME Hi Quenten, Where does the BACD script fail? Are you able to hit the application and hear the prompts at least? Could you share your configuration? Thanks sreekanth On 8 July 2015 at 09:50, Quenten Grasso qgra...@onq.com.aumailto:qgra...@onq.com.au wrote: Hi Everyone, I’m trying to setup an Auto Attendant on a Cisco Call manager express 8 system however I’m not having a lot of joy and to be totally honest I’m not across the cisco gear all that much. I’ve managed to get the config to a point where our sip trunks work and I can make calls inbound and outbound and between extensions so it seems to be a working phone system. However I’m trying to do is setup an Auto Attendant for afterhours use and not having much joy. I’ve loosely followed a few guides as like the links below however basically I’m expecting it to work like this. AA is setup as an “extension/pilot” (having trouble getting this working) The afterhours diversion points the other numbers to the AA Extension. (not up to this part yet) AA extension answers the phone presents 3 or 4 options and then forwards the call to correct call group/extensions (not working yet) https://uccisco.wordpress.com/2014/10/22/cme-basic-automatic-call-distribution-and-auto-attendant-service-b-acd/ https://supportforums.cisco.com/document/65596/b-acd-and-auto-attendant-services-cme Regards, Quenten Grasso ___ 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] glibc/ghost vulnerability
Thanks for the explanation Ryan. On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Ryan LaFountain (rlafount) rlafo...@cisco.com wrote: To add to what Wes said: If you have other UCC products that run on VOS (Finesse, SocialMiner, MediaSense, CUIC) you'll see further differences between underlying VOS versions between them, UCCX and CUCM. This causes not only a lot of confusion in tracking bug fixes in the platform between products but delay in integrating fixes like these as Wes has described below. We are working to address this. The first part is in better tracking of bug fixes and security issues in the platform and between products. The second part is moving to a common underlying platform version and build process for most UCC products. This will greatly speed up our fix inclusion and standardize the underlying VOS version in many of our applications leading to greater consistency and stability. Without exposing too much more, we should see this common VOS in UCC system release 11.0. HTH. Thank you, Ryan LaFountain Unified Contact Center Cisco Services Direct: +1 919 392 9898 Hours: M - F 9:00am - 5:00pm Eastern Time From: cisco-voip on behalf of Charles Goldsmith Date: Friday, July 10, 2015 at 5:21 PM To: Wes Sisk (wsisk) Cc: voip puck Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] glibc/ghost vulnerability Gotcha, thanks for the explanation Wes, that's what I was looking for and can explain it to the customer. I'll let the customer know of the risks and let them make the decision to upgrade or wait for a minor patch. Thanks! On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Wes Sisk (wsisk) ws...@cisco.com wrote: I’ll lead off with: UCCX does a fair amount of work to customize the VOS platform to their needs. As such they don’t pull in updates and fixes as fast as UCM, UC, and CUP. I bet if you check the kernel or RHEL version you will find significant difference and that contributes to the complexity of the fix. admin:show packages active kernel Active Side Package(s): for kernel package(s) kernel-firmware-2.6.32-431.20.3.el6.noarch kernel-2.6.32-431.20.3.el6.x86_64 platform-kernel-tunable-1.0.0.0-1.i386 dracut-kernel-004-336.el6_5.1.noarch RyanL may weigh in with better details. -w On Jul 10, 2015, at 11:41 AM, Charles Goldsmith wo...@justfamily.org wrote: I understand that CUCM and UCCX are both VOS, and that it's probably not the same version, but I don't understand why the platform team for CUCM can give us a minor patch but we can't get the same out of UCCX. I'm sure most of you are like me, and steer clear of .0 releases. There is an old saying, dot Oh, oh no. I'm not comfortable advising a customer to upgrade to the 11.0 release. Would like thoughts on this, and some explanation of the differences of the VOS between CUCM/CUC and UCCX. ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] Shared Line Appearances on SIP Phones
If you are talking about line side, I don't believe so. Thanks, Ryan Original Message From: Mark Holloway m...@markholloway.com Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 07:11 PM To: Cisco VoIP Group cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: [cisco-voip] Shared Line Appearances on SIP Phones By default phones with SIP firmware using shared line appearances do not register to CUCM for the shared lines, just the primary number. Is there a way to force the shared lines to register? I’m trying to get remote users who proxy through an SBC (using SIP) to register all lines (primary + shared lines). Thanks, Mark ___ 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] glibc/ghost vulnerability
I have a customer that is tracking the progress on updates for this bug, http://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20150128-ghost and most of our voice apps have updates, except for UCCX. One of their customers, big bank, audits their progress on security updates and ghost is on their radar, so they have pressure from a customer to update all apps. Customer is currently on 8.6 cucm / 8.5 uccx and we have plans to upgrade them, but waiting on the ghost fix. CUCM, CUC, IMP/CUPS all have published fixes and most are just minor ES type updates. UCCX is showing that the only fix is going to be in 11, and I opened a TAC case to ask about this. I'm told that this is a platform fix (understandable), and it would only a major upgrade, not a cop. I understand that CUCM and UCCX are both VOS, and that it's probably not the same version, but I don't understand why the platform team for CUCM can give us a minor patch but we can't get the same out of UCCX. I'm sure most of you are like me, and steer clear of .0 releases. There is an old saying, dot Oh, oh no. I'm not comfortable advising a customer to upgrade to the 11.0 release. Would like thoughts on this, and some explanation of the differences of the VOS between CUCM/CUC and UCCX. Thanks!! ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] firefox upgrade causing issues with CUCM CCMadmin page
This is the fix I tried yesterday and it worked, no further issues. From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Ryan Huff Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 12:55 PM To: Heim, Dennis; Charles Goldsmith; voip puck Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] firefox upgrade causing issues with CUCM CCMadmin page Here is a good explanation of the issue and how to work around it: http://eltonoverip.com/blog/2015/07/firefox-39-0-ssl-error-weak-ephemeral-diffie-hellman-key/ From: dennis.h...@wwt.commailto:dennis.h...@wwt.com To: wo...@justfamily.orgmailto:wo...@justfamily.org; cisco-voip@puck.nether.netmailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 19:53:09 + Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] firefox upgrade causing issues with CUCM CCMadmin page There is a parameter for those the keys that you need to toggle to disable and then it will work. Not sure of the true impact of that, but that is what I changed. Dennis Heim | Emerging Technology Architect (Collaboration) World Wide Technology, Inc. | +1 314-212-1814 [twitter]https://twitter.com/CollabSensei [chat][Phone][video] There is a fine line between Wrong and Visionary. Unfortunately, you have to be a visionary to see it. - Sheldon Cooper Click here to join me in my Collaboration Meeting Roomhttps://wwt.webex.com/meet/dennis.heim From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Charles Goldsmith Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 3:50 PM To: voip puck Subject: [cisco-voip] firefox upgrade causing issues with CUCM CCMadmin page Getting this error with Firefox 39 An error occurred during a connection to 10.52.122.26. SSL received a weak ephemeral Diffie-Hellman key in Server Key Exchange handshake message. (Error code: ssl_error_weak_server_ephemeral_dh_key) The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because the authenticity of the received data could not be verified. Please contact the website owners to inform them of this problem. I've seen this on 8.6.2 and 9.1.2, the two 10.5.x systems I have access to have 3rd party certs, and they both work fine. The 8.x and 9.x systems do not have 3rd party, just internally signed. Anyone else seeing this and know a work around? I detest using IE or Safari for CUCM work. ___ 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] glibc/ghost vulnerability
I’ll lead off with: UCCX does a fair amount of work to customize the VOS platform to their needs. As such they don’t pull in updates and fixes as fast as UCM, UC, and CUP. I bet if you check the kernel or RHEL version you will find significant difference and that contributes to the complexity of the fix. admin:show packages active kernel Active Side Package(s): for kernel package(s) kernel-firmware-2.6.32-431.20.3.el6.noarch kernel-2.6.32-431.20.3.el6.x86_64 platform-kernel-tunable-1.0.0.0-1.i386 dracut-kernel-004-336.el6_5.1.noarch RyanL may weigh in with better details. -w On Jul 10, 2015, at 11:41 AM, Charles Goldsmith wo...@justfamily.orgmailto:wo...@justfamily.org wrote: I understand that CUCM and UCCX are both VOS, and that it's probably not the same version, but I don't understand why the platform team for CUCM can give us a minor patch but we can't get the same out of UCCX. I'm sure most of you are like me, and steer clear of .0 releases. There is an old saying, dot Oh, oh no. I'm not comfortable advising a customer to upgrade to the 11.0 release. Would like thoughts on this, and some explanation of the differences of the VOS between CUCM/CUC and UCCX. ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
[cisco-voip] Opinions on 10.5(2) SU2 ?
Anyone running this version in production ? I saw a COP file was released this week addressing three SIP bugs that unregister the phones (CM crash?). http://www.cisco.com/web/software/282204704/18582/ciscocm.FQDNwithDNS-v1.0.k3.readme.pdf Any of the Cisco guys know whether this is going to cause a SU2 respin ? I'm running into BAT issues wiht 10.5(2) SU1 and would hate to apply SU2+COP if there is a SU2a coming soon. Justin ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] Opinions on 10.5(2) SU2 ?
I have one customer on SU2, but it's smaller (around 250 phones) and we have not had any issues as you describe. On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Justin Steinberg jsteinb...@gmail.com wrote: Anyone running this version in production ? I saw a COP file was released this week addressing three SIP bugs that unregister the phones (CM crash?). http://www.cisco.com/web/software/282204704/18582/ciscocm.FQDNwithDNS-v1.0.k3.readme.pdf Any of the Cisco guys know whether this is going to cause a SU2 respin ? I'm running into BAT issues wiht 10.5(2) SU1 and would hate to apply SU2+COP if there is a SU2a coming soon. Justin ___ 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
Re: [cisco-voip] Opinions on 10.5(2) SU2 ?
There is an SU2a en route. I would standby for it. +Chris TME - MediaSense and Unity Connection From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Justin Steinberg Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 3:56 PM To: Cisco VOIP Subject: [cisco-voip] Opinions on 10.5(2) SU2 ? Anyone running this version in production ? I saw a COP file was released this week addressing three SIP bugs that unregister the phones (CM crash?). http://www.cisco.com/web/software/282204704/18582/ciscocm.FQDNwithDNS-v1.0.k3.readme.pdf Any of the Cisco guys know whether this is going to cause a SU2 respin ?I'm running into BAT issues wiht 10.5(2) SU1 and would hate to apply SU2+COP if there is a SU2a coming soon. Justin ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] Opinions on 10.5(2) SU2 ?
Thanks Chris, I was suspecting that would be the case. Any guess at an ETA ? On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Chris Ward (chrward) chrw...@cisco.com wrote: There is an SU2a en route. I would standby for it. +Chris TME - MediaSense and Unity Connection *From:* cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] *On Behalf Of *Justin Steinberg *Sent:* Friday, July 10, 2015 3:56 PM *To:* Cisco VOIP *Subject:* [cisco-voip] Opinions on 10.5(2) SU2 ? Anyone running this version in production ? I saw a COP file was released this week addressing three SIP bugs that unregister the phones (CM crash?). http://www.cisco.com/web/software/282204704/18582/ciscocm.FQDNwithDNS-v1.0.k3.readme.pdf Any of the Cisco guys know whether this is going to cause a SU2 respin ? I'm running into BAT issues wiht 10.5(2) SU1 and would hate to apply SU2+COP if there is a SU2a coming soon. Justin ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
[cisco-voip] Finesse Sample gadget web page
Hi all, Anyone have some gadget model for web page display directly in Finesse? Thx, ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] glibc/ghost vulnerability
Gotcha, thanks for the explanation Wes, that's what I was looking for and can explain it to the customer. I'll let the customer know of the risks and let them make the decision to upgrade or wait for a minor patch. Thanks! On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Wes Sisk (wsisk) ws...@cisco.com wrote: I’ll lead off with: UCCX does a fair amount of work to customize the VOS platform to their needs. As such they don’t pull in updates and fixes as fast as UCM, UC, and CUP. I bet if you check the kernel or RHEL version you will find significant difference and that contributes to the complexity of the fix. admin:show packages active kernel Active Side Package(s): for kernel package(s) kernel-firmware-2.6.32-431.20.3.el6.noarch kernel-2.6.32-431.20.3.el6.x86_64 platform-kernel-tunable-1.0.0.0-1.i386 dracut-kernel-004-336.el6_5.1.noarch RyanL may weigh in with better details. -w On Jul 10, 2015, at 11:41 AM, Charles Goldsmith wo...@justfamily.org wrote: I understand that CUCM and UCCX are both VOS, and that it's probably not the same version, but I don't understand why the platform team for CUCM can give us a minor patch but we can't get the same out of UCCX. I'm sure most of you are like me, and steer clear of .0 releases. There is an old saying, dot Oh, oh no. I'm not comfortable advising a customer to upgrade to the 11.0 release. Would like thoughts on this, and some explanation of the differences of the VOS between CUCM/CUC and UCCX. ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] Recommendations for new handsets
We haven't gotten our 8845s yet - but have worked with the 8861 phones for a while - personally once you get used to them the 8800 series really grows on you - and it's a really good looking phone as a bonus, both on the screen and overall design. As already noted, the absence of text over the hardware buttons along with the changed icons on the buttons makes it a challenge initially to hit the right button on transfer, conf etc when you're not thinking about it and used to a 79XX. This was similar with the 99XX series for us. We're iffy on if we like not having the text option but you eventually get better at it (I sometimes still don't hit the right button or encounter Button Identification Paralysis :). The Expansion Module has much more limited space for name/extension/line display info than the old modules since it's split left/right down the middle which is a shame - but looks good overall. Though confusing the first time we were trying to upgrade - the dual-firmware banks does help on upgrade downtime during a firmware transition and is a really nice feature. Overall while there are things we would change - we're going to slowly transition our 79XX to 88XX over time and I agree the firmware should improve dramatically as they mature. We also think the 88XX's will be received as a significant upgrade over the 79XX though those continue to be well-performing workhorses for us. Ken Johnson Director for Network and Telecommunication Services Information Technology 903-233-3520 (w) www.letu.edu/ithttp://www.letu.edu/it | twitter.com/letuithttp://twitter.com/letuit [http://www.letu.edu/opencms/export/sites/default/_Other-Resources/Marketing_Services/Graphic_Standards/emailstandards/2010LogoEmailStd.png] From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Heim, Dennis Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2015 11:48 PM To: Jeremy Bresley; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Recommendations for new handsets I would recommend the 8800's. There have been numerous bugs, but those will get resolved in due time. I'd imagine by the time you order, and it gets fulfilled, more of the major bugs will be resolved. The 7800/8800/DX/MX/IX is where you want to be from the future proof perspective. Dennis Heim | Emerging Technology Architect (Collaboration) World Wide Technology, Inc. | +1 314-212-1814 [twitter]https://twitter.com/CollabSensei [chat]xmpp:dennis.h...@wwt.com[Phone]tel:+13142121814[video]sip:dennis.h...@wwt.com There is a fine line between Wrong and Visionary. Unfortunately, you have to be a visionary to see it. - Sheldon Cooper Click here to join me in my Collaboration Meeting Roomhttps://wwt.webex.com/meet/dennis.heim From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Bresley Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 10:48 PM To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.netmailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Recommendations for new handsets On 7/7/2015 4:58 PM, Terry Oakley wrote: We are in the process of updating our fleet of handsets (most are 7 years or older) and looking for recommendations for what handset model we should move to. Currently most of our sets are the problematic 7941/61 with a number of 7911sets. In classrooms and meeting rooms we have 7945 and 7965 sets that have been very reliable. We are looking at either the 9900 or 8800 series (color screen) but we are seeking your experience and knowledge of those series or what you believe would be a series that we should look at. Thanks Terry Terry Oakley Telecommunications Coordinator | Information Technology Services Red Deer College |100 College Blvd. | Box 5005 | Red Deer | Alberta | T4N 5H5 work (403) 342-3521 | FAX (403) 343-4034 We've deployed a couple of sites with the 8851s as the 7945s are getting price increases (sign of impending EOL usually). Plus'es on the 8851s: Higher res screen (check docs if you have custom backgrounds, sizes are different than any previous models, at least one doc has the wrong size for thumbnails listed), Bluetooth support, Proximity support for phone connectivity (contacts, mobility), USB port for charging a phone (or slow charging a tablet except on the 8861s) Minus'es: Firmware 10.2 had some serious bugs. Worst ones we hit were related to Energy Efficient Ethernet that would cause the PCs to randomly drop connection, and unplugging the PC and plugging it back in was the only way to recover (or resetting the phone). Engineers with these phones having to reboot 4-6X in an 8 hour work day were NOT happy. Upgrading to 10.3 firmware has had them be pretty stable. If you do run into any code bugs, there are only 3 total releases of firmware for these phones, so they are fairly new and aren't as long lived as the 7900's firmware. Different: These are SIP only phones. If all your existing phones are SCCP, this has ramifications for things like SRST configs as well as call flow
Re: [cisco-voip] glibc/ghost vulnerability
To add to what Wes said: If you have other UCC products that run on VOS (Finesse, SocialMiner, MediaSense, CUIC) you'll see further differences between underlying VOS versions between them, UCCX and CUCM. This causes not only a lot of confusion in tracking bug fixes in the platform between products but delay in integrating fixes like these as Wes has described below. We are working to address this. The first part is in better tracking of bug fixes and security issues in the platform and between products. The second part is moving to a common underlying platform version and build process for most UCC products. This will greatly speed up our fix inclusion and standardize the underlying VOS version in many of our applications leading to greater consistency and stability. Without exposing too much more, we should see this common VOS in UCC system release 11.0. HTH. Thank you, Ryan LaFountain Unified Contact Center Cisco Services Direct: +1 919 392 9898 Hours: M - F 9:00am - 5:00pm Eastern Time From: cisco-voip on behalf of Charles Goldsmith Date: Friday, July 10, 2015 at 5:21 PM To: Wes Sisk (wsisk) Cc: voip puck Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] glibc/ghost vulnerability Gotcha, thanks for the explanation Wes, that's what I was looking for and can explain it to the customer. I'll let the customer know of the risks and let them make the decision to upgrade or wait for a minor patch. Thanks! On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Wes Sisk (wsisk) ws...@cisco.commailto:ws...@cisco.com wrote: I’ll lead off with: UCCX does a fair amount of work to customize the VOS platform to their needs. As such they don’t pull in updates and fixes as fast as UCM, UC, and CUP. I bet if you check the kernel or RHEL version you will find significant difference and that contributes to the complexity of the fix. admin:show packages active kernel Active Side Package(s): for kernel package(s) kernel-firmware-2.6.32-431.20.3.el6.noarch kernel-2.6.32-431.20.3.el6.x86_64 platform-kernel-tunable-1.0.0.0-1.i386 dracut-kernel-004-336.el6_5.1.noarch RyanL may weigh in with better details. -w On Jul 10, 2015, at 11:41 AM, Charles Goldsmith wo...@justfamily.orgmailto:wo...@justfamily.org wrote: I understand that CUCM and UCCX are both VOS, and that it's probably not the same version, but I don't understand why the platform team for CUCM can give us a minor patch but we can't get the same out of UCCX. I'm sure most of you are like me, and steer clear of .0 releases. There is an old saying, dot Oh, oh no. I'm not comfortable advising a customer to upgrade to the 11.0 release. Would like thoughts on this, and some explanation of the differences of the VOS between CUCM/CUC and UCCX. ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
