Re: [cisco-voip] Cluster setup with 2 Subs - Sub 2 did not pick up the load.

[Gary_Bates_Command_Solutions]

HI Ryan

 

possible, I wasn't around wen it was setup.

 

 

From: Ryan Huff [mailto:ryanh...@outlook.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, 31 January 2017 11:08 AM
To: Gary_Bates_Command_Solutions 
Cc: Nathan Reeves ; Cisco VoIP List

Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Cluster setup with 2 Subs - Sub 2 did not pick up
the load.

 

Was the third node (the second subscriber) added after the cluster (pub and
sub1) was established and phones already registered?

Sent from my iPhone


On Jan 30, 2017, at 7:02 PM, Gary_Bates_Command_Solutions
 >
wrote:

Hi Ryan

 

Not using DNS to resolve Hostnames, all server names are IP addresses.

On Sub 2 , the CM services and TFTP services were checked and no issues.

 

One question, how do you check "all registerable nodes are listed in the
trust list" ??

 

On the phones I am seeing TFTP server 1 --> Sub 1 and TFTP server 2 --> Sub
2

 

When I manually change TFTP server 1 to point to Sub 2 it asks me to erase
the ITL, does that sound right ?

 

Thx Gary

 

From: Ryan Huff [mailto:ryanh...@outlook.com] 
Sent: Monday, 30 January 2017 11:42 PM
To: Nathan Reeves  >
Cc: Gary_Bates_Command_Solutions  >; Cisco VoIP List
 >
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Cluster setup with 2 Subs - Sub 2 did not pick up
the load.

 

I realize you mentioned the IP addresses of the communications manager
servers were listed in the phone's trust list however; keep in mind that if
DNS/FQDNs are being used, the phones will also have to be able to resolve
those FQDNs (otherwise, you'd likely experience something very similar to
this).

 

If you have verified from the individual phone, that all registerable nodes
are listed in the trust list, verify those nodes are also in the CM Server
Group.

 

You might also check on this server node that did not except phone
registrations, that CM services and TFTP services are enabled.

-Ryan


On Jan 30, 2017, at 2:15 AM, Nathan Reeves  > wrote:

Which Servers are included in the Server Group which is selected in the
Device Pool assigned to the Phones?  When you mention 'TFTP Server lists',
I'm assuming you mean the IP Addresses included in DHCP Option 150?  This is
seperate to the CUCM Servers that are pushed to the phones. 

 

But assuming all servers are included in the CUCM Server Group assigned to
the Device Pool, the phones should have failed over upon loss of
communication with their primary (and possibly) secondary CUCM Server.

 

Take a look at the web page of a phone and under the 'Network Setup' page,
see what are set for 'Unified CM 1', 'Unified CM 2' and 'Unified CM 3' are.

 

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Gary_Bates_Command_Solutions
 >
wrote:

My client had an issue where the 2nd sub did not register any phones when
the Pub and primary Sub failed.

 

This is a 1500 seat call centre so it caused a massive problem.

 

All phones have the IP addresses of both subs in their TFTP server lists.
Network routing confirmed ok. Call Manager / TFTP service running on both
Subs. DB replication status good.

 

Could someone confirm that if Pub / Sub 1 go down, Sub 2 should allow phone/
device registration and calls to still work ?

 

Regards

 

 Gary Bates

 Voice and Network Specialist 

 CCIE #53842

 



 

 Mobile 0424 229 995 ( + 61 424 229995   )

 Email:  
gba...@commandsolutions.com.au  

 


___
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 mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] Cluster setup with 2 Subs - Sub 2 did not pick up the load.

[Ryan Huff]

Was the third node (the second subscriber) added after the cluster (pub and 
sub1) was established and phones already registered?

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 30, 2017, at 7:02 PM, Gary_Bates_Command_Solutions 
> wrote:

Hi Ryan

Not using DNS to resolve Hostnames, all server names are IP addresses.
On Sub 2 , the CM services and TFTP services were checked and no issues.

One question, how do you check "all registerable nodes are listed in the trust 
list" ??

On the phones I am seeing TFTP server 1 --> Sub 1 and TFTP server 2 --> Sub 2

When I manually change TFTP server 1 to point to Sub 2 it asks me to erase the 
ITL, does that sound right ?

Thx Gary

From: Ryan Huff [mailto:ryanh...@outlook.com]
Sent: Monday, 30 January 2017 11:42 PM
To: Nathan Reeves >
Cc: Gary_Bates_Command_Solutions 
>; Cisco 
VoIP List >
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Cluster setup with 2 Subs - Sub 2 did not pick up the 
load.

I realize you mentioned the IP addresses of the communications manager servers 
were listed in the phone's trust list however; keep in mind that if DNS/FQDNs 
are being used, the phones will also have to be able to resolve those FQDNs 
(otherwise, you'd likely experience something very similar to this).

If you have verified from the individual phone, that all registerable nodes are 
listed in the trust list, verify those nodes are also in the CM Server Group.

You might also check on this server node that did not except phone 
registrations, that CM services and TFTP services are enabled.

-Ryan

On Jan 30, 2017, at 2:15 AM, Nathan Reeves 
> wrote:
Which Servers are included in the Server Group which is selected in the Device 
Pool assigned to the Phones?  When you mention 'TFTP Server lists', I'm 
assuming you mean the IP Addresses included in DHCP Option 150?  This is 
seperate to the CUCM Servers that are pushed to the phones.

But assuming all servers are included in the CUCM Server Group assigned to the 
Device Pool, the phones should have failed over upon loss of communication with 
their primary (and possibly) secondary CUCM Server.

Take a look at the web page of a phone and under the 'Network Setup' page, see 
what are set for 'Unified CM 1', 'Unified CM 2' and 'Unified CM 3' are.

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Gary_Bates_Command_Solutions 
> wrote:
My client had an issue where the 2nd sub did not register any phones when the 
Pub and primary Sub failed.

This is a 1500 seat call centre so it caused a massive problem.

All phones have the IP addresses of both subs in their TFTP server lists. 
Network routing confirmed ok. Call Manager / TFTP service running on both Subs. 
DB replication status good.

Could someone confirm that if Pub / Sub 1 go down, Sub 2 should allow phone/ 
device registration and calls to still work ?

Regards

 Gary Bates
 Voice and Network Specialist
 CCIE #53842



 Mobile 0424 229 995 ( + 61 424 229995 )
 Email: gba...@commandsolutions.com.au


___
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 mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] Cluster setup with 2 Subs - Sub 2 did not pick up the load.

[Gary_Bates_Command_Solutions]

Hi Ryan

 

Not using DNS to resolve Hostnames, all server names are IP addresses.

On Sub 2 , the CM services and TFTP services were checked and no issues.

 

One question, how do you check "all registerable nodes are listed in the
trust list" ??

 

On the phones I am seeing TFTP server 1 --> Sub 1 and TFTP server 2 --> Sub
2

 

When I manually change TFTP server 1 to point to Sub 2 it asks me to erase
the ITL, does that sound right ?

 

Thx Gary

 

From: Ryan Huff [mailto:ryanh...@outlook.com] 
Sent: Monday, 30 January 2017 11:42 PM
To: Nathan Reeves 
Cc: Gary_Bates_Command_Solutions ; Cisco
VoIP List 
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Cluster setup with 2 Subs - Sub 2 did not pick up
the load.

 

I realize you mentioned the IP addresses of the communications manager
servers were listed in the phone's trust list however; keep in mind that if
DNS/FQDNs are being used, the phones will also have to be able to resolve
those FQDNs (otherwise, you'd likely experience something very similar to
this).

 

If you have verified from the individual phone, that all registerable nodes
are listed in the trust list, verify those nodes are also in the CM Server
Group.

 

You might also check on this server node that did not except phone
registrations, that CM services and TFTP services are enabled.

-Ryan


On Jan 30, 2017, at 2:15 AM, Nathan Reeves  > wrote:

Which Servers are included in the Server Group which is selected in the
Device Pool assigned to the Phones?  When you mention 'TFTP Server lists',
I'm assuming you mean the IP Addresses included in DHCP Option 150?  This is
seperate to the CUCM Servers that are pushed to the phones. 

 

But assuming all servers are included in the CUCM Server Group assigned to
the Device Pool, the phones should have failed over upon loss of
communication with their primary (and possibly) secondary CUCM Server.

 

Take a look at the web page of a phone and under the 'Network Setup' page,
see what are set for 'Unified CM 1', 'Unified CM 2' and 'Unified CM 3' are.

 

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Gary_Bates_Command_Solutions
 >
wrote:

My client had an issue where the 2nd sub did not register any phones when
the Pub and primary Sub failed.

 

This is a 1500 seat call centre so it caused a massive problem.

 

All phones have the IP addresses of both subs in their TFTP server lists.
Network routing confirmed ok. Call Manager / TFTP service running on both
Subs. DB replication status good.

 

Could someone confirm that if Pub / Sub 1 go down, Sub 2 should allow phone/
device registration and calls to still work ?

 

Regards

 

 Gary Bates

 Voice and Network Specialist 

 CCIE #53842

 



 

 Mobile 0424 229 995 ( + 61 424 229995   )

 Email:  
gba...@commandsolutions.com.au  

 


___
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 mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] Panic Button Solution?

[Nick Britt]

Hi Lisa,



There is a company based in India that I have used in the past that I
believe have a product that meets your requirements.



http://www.parsec-tech.com/ProjectDocs/MARS%20Panic%20Button.pdf



I haven’t used this specific product before but used another (silent
monitoring) and was very impressed with the product and service.



Cheers



Nick



CCIE Collaboration #54108



On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Ryan Huff  wrote:

> While this still in allows for 2-way communication; an interim solution
> until the Informacast server is available again (that is your best option)
> is to have the far end phone auto answer on speaker and do a local side
> route pattern with a unique steering digit.
>
> Outside of that and assuming you have network devices that could do it,
> you could on purpose, break the far end RTP network path; this would take
> some engineering to isolate it to one phone still allow the call setup
> (SIP) (would have to disable VAD / Silence suppression in CCM too which has
> its own implications) and honestly, would it be worth the investment in
> time and effort?
>
> How long until the upgrade on InformaCast Vs. how bad does it need done in
> totality now, or can you implement a 'sort of complete' solution like just
> having the far-end auto answer?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 30, 2017, at 4:36 PM, Ben Amick  wrote:
>
> Issue with intercom is it is strictly a 1:1 relationship, and would
> require a seemingly infinite number of sidecars on the campus police, as it
> requires the intercom button on both devices., at least in my experience.
> It also doesn’t establish a conversation, so you have no idea if anyone is
> actually listening on the other end.
>
>
>
> *Ben Amick*
>
> Telecom Analyst
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net
> ] *On Behalf Of *Lelio Fulgenzi
> *Sent:* Monday, January 30, 2017 4:33 PM
> *To:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Panic Button Solution?
>
>
>
>
>
> How about Intercom? From what I remember (and read below) it's a feature
> which automatically connects the caller to the recipient in whisper mode so
> that the called party hears everything but can't actually talk back until
> they initiate so. No ringing, auto-answer. I'm not sure if there is a
> one-to-one or one-to-many relationship and how that would work at the end
> unit. But that being said, that would be a problem with any solution.
> Multiple locations sending panic calls to one destination (campus police).
>
>
>
> If it were me, I'd investigate intercoms.
>
>
>
> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/
> admin/10_0_1/ccmfeat/CUCM_BK_F3AC1C0F_00_cucm-features-
> services-guide-100/CUCM_BK_F3AC1C0F_00_cucm-features-
> services-guide-100_chapter_0100011.html
>
>
> 
>
> Features and Services Guide for Cisco Unified ...
> 
>
> www.cisco.com
>
> Features and Services Guide for Cisco Unified Communications Manager,
> Release 10.0(1) -Intercom
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
>
> Senior Analyst, Network Infrastructure
>
> Computing and Communications Services (CCS)
>
> University of Guelph
>
>
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext 56354 <(519)%20824-4120>
>
> le...@uoguelph.ca
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs
>
> Room 037, Animal Science and Nutrition Building
>
> Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1
>
>
> --
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  on behalf of Lisa
> Notarianni 
> *Sent:* Monday, January 30, 2017 4:18 PM
> *To:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] Panic Button Solution?
>
>
>
> Call Manager 10.5.2.12901-1
>
>
>
> I have a request from a department here at The University of Scranton to
> use a button on their phone as a panic button that would do the following:
>
> 1.   Automatically dial our Police department without a ring tone
>
> 2.   Provide one way communication to University Police so they can
> listen to the conversation to get an idea of the issue and then dispatch an
> officer
>
> It is important to have silence on the phone connection when the button is
> pressed
>
> I looked into PLAR but I don’t think it can be configured exactly this
> way.  We have a SingleWire server but it is in the process of being
> upgraded. So, before we install a physical panic button without a voice
> feature, we wondered if there were any other creative solutions.
>
> Thank you in advance -
>
> Lisa Notarianni
>
> [image: Lisa Notarianni Telecom Engineer]
>
>
>
>

Re: [cisco-voip] Cluster setup with 2 Subs - Sub 2 did not pick up the load.

[Gary_Bates_Command_Solutions]

Hi Nathan

 

Thanks, I replied to Bernhard already on the same points.

We are running 8.5 so there is no network setup page on the phone web page.

 

All Device pools are referencing the 2 CM groups. Both Groups have listed both 
subs.

 

Regards

 

Gary

 

From: Nathan Reeves [mailto:nathan.a.ree...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, 30 January 2017 6:15 PM
To: Gary_Bates_Command_Solutions 
Cc: Cisco VoIP List 
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Cluster setup with 2 Subs - Sub 2 did not pick up the 
load.

 

Which Servers are included in the Server Group which is selected in the Device 
Pool assigned to the Phones?  When you mention 'TFTP Server lists', I'm 
assuming you mean the IP Addresses included in DHCP Option 150?  This is 
seperate to the CUCM Servers that are pushed to the phones.

 

But assuming all servers are included in the CUCM Server Group assigned to the 
Device Pool, the phones should have failed over upon loss of communication with 
their primary (and possibly) secondary CUCM Server.

 

Take a look at the web page of a phone and under the 'Network Setup' page, see 
what are set for 'Unified CM 1', 'Unified CM 2' and 'Unified CM 3' are.

 

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Gary_Bates_Command_Solutions 
 > wrote:

My client had an issue where the 2nd sub did not register any phones when the 
Pub and primary Sub failed.

 

This is a 1500 seat call centre so it caused a massive problem.

 

All phones have the IP addresses of both subs in their TFTP server lists. 
Network routing confirmed ok. Call Manager / TFTP service running on both Subs. 
DB replication status good.

 

Could someone confirm that if Pub / Sub 1 go down, Sub 2 should allow phone/ 
device registration and calls to still work ?

 

Regards

 

 Gary Bates

 Voice and Network Specialist 

 CCIE #53842

 



 

 Mobile 0424 229 995 ( + 61 424 229995   )

 Email:   
gba...@commandsolutions.com.au  

 


___
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] Panic Button Solution?

[Ryan Huff]

While this still in allows for 2-way communication; an interim solution until 
the Informacast server is available again (that is your best option) is to have 
the far end phone auto answer on speaker and do a local side route pattern with 
a unique steering digit.

Outside of that and assuming you have network devices that could do it, you 
could on purpose, break the far end RTP network path; this would take some 
engineering to isolate it to one phone still allow the call setup (SIP) (would 
have to disable VAD / Silence suppression in CCM too which has its own 
implications) and honestly, would it be worth the investment in time and effort?

How long until the upgrade on InformaCast Vs. how bad does it need done in 
totality now, or can you implement a 'sort of complete' solution like just 
having the far-end auto answer?

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 30, 2017, at 4:36 PM, Ben Amick 
> wrote:

Issue with intercom is it is strictly a 1:1 relationship, and would require a 
seemingly infinite number of sidecars on the campus police, as it requires the 
intercom button on both devices., at least in my experience. It also doesn’t 
establish a conversation, so you have no idea if anyone is actually listening 
on the other end.

Ben Amick
Telecom Analyst

From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio 
Fulgenzi
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 4:33 PM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Panic Button Solution?




How about Intercom? From what I remember (and read below) it's a feature which 
automatically connects the caller to the recipient in whisper mode so that the 
called party hears everything but can't actually talk back until they initiate 
so. No ringing, auto-answer. I'm not sure if there is a one-to-one or 
one-to-many relationship and how that would work at the end unit. But that 
being said, that would be a problem with any solution. Multiple locations 
sending panic calls to one destination (campus police).



If it were me, I'd investigate intercoms.



http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/admin/10_0_1/ccmfeat/CUCM_BK_F3AC1C0F_00_cucm-features-services-guide-100/CUCM_BK_F3AC1C0F_00_cucm-features-services-guide-100_chapter_0100011.html
[http://www.cisco.com/web/fw/i/logo-open-graph.gif]

Features and Services Guide for Cisco Unified 
...
www.cisco.com
Features and Services Guide for Cisco Unified Communications Manager, Release 
10.0(1) -Intercom




---
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Senior Analyst, Network Infrastructure
Computing and Communications Services (CCS)
University of Guelph

519-824-4120 Ext 56354
le...@uoguelph.ca
www.uoguelph.ca/ccs
Room 037, Animal Science and Nutrition Building
Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1


From: cisco-voip 
> 
on behalf of Lisa Notarianni 
>
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 4:18 PM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-voip] Panic Button Solution?


Call Manager 10.5.2.12901-1



I have a request from a department here at The University of Scranton to use a 
button on their phone as a panic button that would do the following:

1.   Automatically dial our Police department without a ring tone

2.   Provide one way communication to University Police so they can listen 
to the conversation to get an idea of the issue and then dispatch an officer

It is important to have silence on the phone connection when the button is 
pressed

I looked into PLAR but I don’t think it can be configured exactly this way.  We 
have a SingleWire server but it is in the process of being upgraded. So, before 
we install a physical panic button without a voice feature, we wondered if 
there were any other creative solutions.

Thank you in advance -

Lisa Notarianni

[Lisa Notarianni Telecom Engineer]





Confidentiality Note: This message is intended for use only by the individual 
or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is 
privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If 
the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or 
agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are 
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying 

Re: [cisco-voip] Panic Button Solution?

[Lelio Fulgenzi]

ok. was not aware of the 1:1 requirements. might still work if the demand is 
low.


how would the other solutions satisfy your concerns though? if they want 
silence and no ringing? i'm just not seeing it.


---
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Senior Analyst, Network Infrastructure
Computing and Communications Services (CCS)
University of Guelph

519-824-4120 Ext 56354
le...@uoguelph.ca
www.uoguelph.ca/ccs
Room 037, Animal Science and Nutrition Building
Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1



From: Ben Amick 
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 4:35 PM
To: Lelio Fulgenzi; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: Panic Button Solution?


Issue with intercom is it is strictly a 1:1 relationship, and would require a 
seemingly infinite number of sidecars on the campus police, as it requires the 
intercom button on both devices., at least in my experience. It also doesn’t 
establish a conversation, so you have no idea if anyone is actually listening 
on the other end.



Ben Amick

Telecom Analyst



From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio 
Fulgenzi
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 4:33 PM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Panic Button Solution?





How about Intercom? From what I remember (and read below) it's a feature which 
automatically connects the caller to the recipient in whisper mode so that the 
called party hears everything but can't actually talk back until they initiate 
so. No ringing, auto-answer. I'm not sure if there is a one-to-one or 
one-to-many relationship and how that would work at the end unit. But that 
being said, that would be a problem with any solution. Multiple locations 
sending panic calls to one destination (campus police).



If it were me, I'd investigate intercoms.



http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/admin/10_0_1/ccmfeat/CUCM_BK_F3AC1C0F_00_cucm-features-services-guide-100/CUCM_BK_F3AC1C0F_00_cucm-features-services-guide-100_chapter_0100011.html

[http://www.cisco.com/web/fw/i/logo-open-graph.gif]

[http://www.cisco.com/web/fw/i/logo-open-graph.gif]

Features and Services Guide for Cisco Unified 
...
www.cisco.com
Features and Services Guide for Cisco Unified Communications Manager, Release 
10.0(1) -Intercom




Features and Services Guide for Cisco Unified 
...

www.cisco.com

Features and Services Guide for Cisco Unified Communications Manager, Release 
10.0(1) -Intercom






---

Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.

Senior Analyst, Network Infrastructure

Computing and Communications Services (CCS)

University of Guelph



519-824-4120 Ext 56354

le...@uoguelph.ca

www.uoguelph.ca/ccs

Room 037, Animal Science and Nutrition Building

Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1





From: cisco-voip 
> 
on behalf of Lisa Notarianni 
>
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 4:18 PM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-voip] Panic Button Solution?



Call Manager 10.5.2.12901-1



I have a request from a department here at The University of Scranton to use a 
button on their phone as a panic button that would do the following:

1.   Automatically dial our Police department without a ring tone

2.   Provide one way communication to University Police so they can listen 
to the conversation to get an idea of the issue and then dispatch an officer

It is important to have silence on the phone connection when the button is 
pressed

I looked into PLAR but I don’t think it can be configured exactly this way.  We 
have a SingleWire server but it is in the process of being upgraded. So, before 
we install a physical panic button without a voice feature, we wondered if 
there were any other creative solutions.

Thank you in advance -

Lisa Notarianni

[Lisa Notarianni Telecom Engineer]





Confidentiality Note: This message is intended for use only by the individual 
or entity to which it is addressed and 

Re: [cisco-voip] Panic Button Solution?

[Ben Amick]

Issue with intercom is it is strictly a 1:1 relationship, and would require a 
seemingly infinite number of sidecars on the campus police, as it requires the 
intercom button on both devices., at least in my experience. It also doesn't 
establish a conversation, so you have no idea if anyone is actually listening 
on the other end.

Ben Amick
Telecom Analyst

From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio 
Fulgenzi
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 4:33 PM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Panic Button Solution?




How about Intercom? From what I remember (and read below) it's a feature which 
automatically connects the caller to the recipient in whisper mode so that the 
called party hears everything but can't actually talk back until they initiate 
so. No ringing, auto-answer. I'm not sure if there is a one-to-one or 
one-to-many relationship and how that would work at the end unit. But that 
being said, that would be a problem with any solution. Multiple locations 
sending panic calls to one destination (campus police).



If it were me, I'd investigate intercoms.



http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/admin/10_0_1/ccmfeat/CUCM_BK_F3AC1C0F_00_cucm-features-services-guide-100/CUCM_BK_F3AC1C0F_00_cucm-features-services-guide-100_chapter_0100011.html
[http://www.cisco.com/web/fw/i/logo-open-graph.gif]

Features and Services Guide for Cisco Unified 
...
www.cisco.com
Features and Services Guide for Cisco Unified Communications Manager, Release 
10.0(1) -Intercom




---
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Senior Analyst, Network Infrastructure
Computing and Communications Services (CCS)
University of Guelph

519-824-4120 Ext 56354
le...@uoguelph.ca
www.uoguelph.ca/ccs
Room 037, Animal Science and Nutrition Building
Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1


From: cisco-voip 
> 
on behalf of Lisa Notarianni 
>
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 4:18 PM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-voip] Panic Button Solution?


Call Manager 10.5.2.12901-1



I have a request from a department here at The University of Scranton to use a 
button on their phone as a panic button that would do the following:

1.   Automatically dial our Police department without a ring tone

2.   Provide one way communication to University Police so they can listen 
to the conversation to get an idea of the issue and then dispatch an officer

It is important to have silence on the phone connection when the button is 
pressed

I looked into PLAR but I don't think it can be configured exactly this way.  We 
have a SingleWire server but it is in the process of being upgraded. So, before 
we install a physical panic button without a voice feature, we wondered if 
there were any other creative solutions.

Thank you in advance -

Lisa Notarianni

[Lisa Notarianni Telecom Engineer]






Confidentiality Note: This message is intended for use only by the individual 
or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is 
privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If 
the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or 
agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are 
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this 
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in its 
entirety, whether electronic or hard copy. Thank you___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] Panic Button Solution?

[Lelio Fulgenzi]

How about Intercom? From what I remember (and read below) it's a feature which 
automatically connects the caller to the recipient in whisper mode so that the 
called party hears everything but can't actually talk back until they initiate 
so. No ringing, auto-answer. I'm not sure if there is a one-to-one or 
one-to-many relationship and how that would work at the end unit. But that 
being said, that would be a problem with any solution. Multiple locations 
sending panic calls to one destination (campus police).


If it were me, I'd investigate intercoms.


http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/admin/10_0_1/ccmfeat/CUCM_BK_F3AC1C0F_00_cucm-features-services-guide-100/CUCM_BK_F3AC1C0F_00_cucm-features-services-guide-100_chapter_0100011.html

[http://www.cisco.com/web/fw/i/logo-open-graph.gif]

Features and Services Guide for Cisco Unified 
...
www.cisco.com
Features and Services Guide for Cisco Unified Communications Manager, Release 
10.0(1) -Intercom





---
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Senior Analyst, Network Infrastructure
Computing and Communications Services (CCS)
University of Guelph

519-824-4120 Ext 56354
le...@uoguelph.ca
www.uoguelph.ca/ccs
Room 037, Animal Science and Nutrition Building
Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1



From: cisco-voip  on behalf of Lisa 
Notarianni 
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 4:18 PM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-voip] Panic Button Solution?


Call Manager 10.5.2.12901-1



I have a request from a department here at The University of Scranton to use a 
button on their phone as a panic button that would do the following:

1.   Automatically dial our Police department without a ring tone

2.   Provide one way communication to University Police so they can listen 
to the conversation to get an idea of the issue and then dispatch an officer

It is important to have silence on the phone connection when the button is 
pressed

I looked into PLAR but I don't think it can be configured exactly this way.  We 
have a SingleWire server but it is in the process of being upgraded. So, before 
we install a physical panic button without a voice feature, we wondered if 
there were any other creative solutions.

Thank you in advance -

Lisa Notarianni

[Lisa Notarianni Telecom Engineer]




___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] Cisco 8851 and Bluetooth Speaker

[Ed Leatherman]

We've been using the speak 510's for just this reason and they've worked
out OK.. actually started using them with 8945's initially but bluetooth
seems to work better on the 8800's, anecdotally.

I haven't been thrilled with the 8831. Internal customers don't care for
the form-factor and they haven't been as reliable as the 7937's for us.

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Pawlowski, Adam  wrote:

> Has anyone tried to use the Cisco 8851 and a Bluetooth speakerphone as
> sort of a poor man's conferencing set? The sets themselves sound pretty
> good on their own, but, something like the Jabra Speak 510 that is
> Bluetooth enabled would be a more cost effective option than the $900+ 8831
> set (which still has an unresolved bug causing the Conf button to randomly
> fail anyways).
>
> It is obviously not explicitly called out as supported, but, anyone tried
> this and had any success? Or, any recommendation on a 3rd party
> conferencing phone that is more cost effective, even if not as capable, for
> a smaller (6 - 8 person) conference?
>
> Regards,
>
> Adam Pawlowski
> SUNYAB NCS
> aj...@buffalo.edu
> +1.716.6458489
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>



-- 
Ed Leatherman
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] Panic Button Solution?

[Terry Oakley]

Once you are upgraded I would look at the Singlewire software (InformaCast).   
I believe the Panic button feature will work exactly as you require if you have 
the Advanced InformaCast installed.   I haven’t created the open mic situation 
but we certainly have been able to use the Panic button in a silent mode.
Cannot see why you can’t make the phone mic open (if the phone model has a mic) 
so that the security side can listen to the active situation.   Will look at 
that and see what I can find out.

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



From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lisa 
Notarianni
Sent: January 30, 2017 2:19 PM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-voip] Panic Button Solution?


Call Manager 10.5.2.12901-1



I have a request from a department here at The University of Scranton to use a 
button on their phone as a panic button that would do the following:

1.  Automatically dial our Police department without a ring tone

2.  Provide one way communication to University Police so they can listen 
to the conversation to get an idea of the issue and then dispatch an officer

It is important to have silence on the phone connection when the button is 
pressed

I looked into PLAR but I don’t think it can be configured exactly this way.  We 
have a SingleWire server but it is in the process of being upgraded. So, before 
we install a physical panic button without a voice feature, we wondered if 
there were any other creative solutions.

Thank you in advance -
Lisa Notarianni
[cid:image001.png@01D27B04.C7182660]



___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

[cisco-voip] Fortinet SSL VPN UCCX

[Dan Mason]

Any seen issues with SSL VPN users running CAD/Supervisor over a Fortigate VPN 
connection?  Im seeing traffic both ways on correct ports but chat/agent 
summary isn't working from the Supervisor client.

FortiOS:  5.2.10
CCX 9.0.2




-Original Message-
From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of 
cisco-voip-requ...@puck.nether.net
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 12:00 PM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: cisco-voip Digest, Vol 159, Issue 23

Send cisco-voip mailing list submissions to
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__puck.nether.net_mailman_listinfo_cisco-2Dvoip=DQICAg=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=__J_mRWed6v-NS1wLqgaOEJvgtKOvHgszu8ypqZazE4=z6fImVbtN2c9ujgHPpC6fLJOn9Vvg4xcIKszGENUahw=2HkddNJbwwI1cy0dMLfAXUTCWj_CAjSqdJf2rxHGHXc=
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
cisco-voip-requ...@puck.nether.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
cisco-voip-ow...@puck.nether.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: 
Contents of cisco-voip digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Cluster setup with 2 Subs - Sub 2 did not pick up the load.
  (Gary_Bates_Command_Solutions)
   2. Re: Cluster setup with 2 Subs - Sub 2 did not pick up the
  load. (Bernhard Albler)
   3. Re: Cluster setup with 2 Subs - Sub 2 did not pick up the
  load. (Nathan Reeves)
   4. Re: Cluster setup with 2 Subs - Sub 2 did not pick up the
  load. (Ryan Huff)


--

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:52:38 +1100
From: "Gary_Bates_Command_Solutions" 
To: "'Cisco VoIP List'" 
Subject: [cisco-voip] Cluster setup with 2 Subs - Sub 2 did not pick
up the load.
Message-ID: <029901d27ac5$724d9a00$56e8ce00$@commandsolutions.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

My client had an issue where the 2nd sub did not register any phones when the 
Pub and primary Sub failed.



This is a 1500 seat call centre so it caused a massive problem.



All phones have the IP addresses of both subs in their TFTP server lists.
Network routing confirmed ok. Call Manager / TFTP service running on both Subs. 
DB replication status good.



Could someone confirm that if Pub / Sub 1 go down, Sub 2 should allow phone/ 
device registration and calls to still work ?



Regards



 Gary Bates

 Voice and Network Specialist

 CCIE #53842







 Mobile 0424 229 995 ( + 61 424 229995 )

 Email:  
gba...@commandsolutions.com.au



-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2737 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 


--

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 08:14:25 +0100
From: Bernhard Albler 

To: Gary_Bates_Command_Solutions 
Cc: Cisco VoIP List 
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Cluster setup with 2 Subs - Sub 2 did not
pick up the load.
Message-ID:

Re: [cisco-voip] Cluster setup with 2 Subs - Sub 2 did not pick up the load.

[Ryan Huff]

I realize you mentioned the IP addresses of the communications manager servers 
were listed in the phone's trust list however; keep in mind that if DNS/FQDNs 
are being used, the phones will also have to be able to resolve those FQDNs 
(otherwise, you'd likely experience something very similar to this).

If you have verified from the individual phone, that all registerable nodes are 
listed in the trust list, verify those nodes are also in the CM Server Group.

You might also check on this server node that did not except phone 
registrations, that CM services and TFTP services are enabled.

-Ryan

On Jan 30, 2017, at 2:15 AM, Nathan Reeves 
> wrote:

Which Servers are included in the Server Group which is selected in the Device 
Pool assigned to the Phones?  When you mention 'TFTP Server lists', I'm 
assuming you mean the IP Addresses included in DHCP Option 150?  This is 
seperate to the CUCM Servers that are pushed to the phones.

But assuming all servers are included in the CUCM Server Group assigned to the 
Device Pool, the phones should have failed over upon loss of communication with 
their primary (and possibly) secondary CUCM Server.

Take a look at the web page of a phone and under the 'Network Setup' page, see 
what are set for 'Unified CM 1', 'Unified CM 2' and 'Unified CM 3' are.

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Gary_Bates_Command_Solutions 
> wrote:
My client had an issue where the 2nd sub did not register any phones when the 
Pub and primary Sub failed.

This is a 1500 seat call centre so it caused a massive problem.

All phones have the IP addresses of both subs in their TFTP server lists. 
Network routing confirmed ok. Call Manager / TFTP service running on both Subs. 
DB replication status good.

Could someone confirm that if Pub / Sub 1 go down, Sub 2 should allow phone/ 
device registration and calls to still work ?

Regards

 Gary Bates
 Voice and Network Specialist
 CCIE #53842

[cid:image001.jpg@01CC9F93.487A1130]

 Mobile 0424 229 995 ( + 61 424 229995 )
 Email: gba...@commandsolutions.com.au


___
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 mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip