[cisco-voip] Hardware Tokens/Secure Cluster

[Matthew Loraditch]

We have a client who is requesting a secure cluster. Never done it before. Do 
those hardware tokens still exist? It appears not and it's all software based 
now?
Any fantastic blogs or step by step guides that folks have used? The 
documentation is refreshingly mind numbing.

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

Re: [cisco-voip] DTMF settings in CUCM

[Joe Loiacono]

It's 10.0.1

The phone is a Valley Communications SVC-2 with the following settings:
In band or Out of band DTMF tones:  Out of band
Length of tone on and off time:  100
Out of band DTMF payload type:  102
 
Under Clusterwide parameters (H.323) we found and set:

H225 DTMF Duration: 100
Audio Bandwidth for Call Counting CAC: 102

... might be coincidence, and it seems to work. 

Thanks,

Joe



From:   Nick Britt 
To: Brian Meade 
Cc: Joe Loiacono/USA/CSC@CSC, cisco-voip 
, "cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" 

Date:   08/28/2017 02:09 PM
Subject:Re: [cisco-voip] DTMF settings in CUCM



Hi Joe,

Can I ask which version of CUCM you are using? there are some known issues 
with DTMF in 10.5.2

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Brian Meade  wrote:
CUCM will try to negotiate inband (RFC2833) and out of band.

I don't believe you can edit length of tone or on/off times for RFC2833.

To use true inband, you need a universal transcoder.

It tries to negotiate a few different methods such as Unsolicited Notify, 
KPML, and SIP Info (I believe receive but not send on this one).  You 
can't hard set to use a certain out of band DTMF method.  It should 
automatically negotiate.  You'll have to check the SIP signaling.

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Joe Loiacono  wrote:
Having difficulties with a third-party conference phone losing DTMF 
capability. 

Does anyone know where to find these settings in CUCM? 
  
In band or Out of band DTMF tones 
Length of tone on and off time 
Out of band DTMF payload type 

Thanks, 

Joe
___
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




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

Re: [cisco-voip] DTMF settings in CUCM

[Nick Britt]

Hi Joe,

Can I ask which version of CUCM you are using? there are some known issues
with DTMF in 10.5.2

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Brian Meade  wrote:

> CUCM will try to negotiate inband (RFC2833) and out of band.
>
> I don't believe you can edit length of tone or on/off times for RFC2833.
>
> To use true inband, you need a universal transcoder.
>
> It tries to negotiate a few different methods such as Unsolicited Notify,
> KPML, and SIP Info (I believe receive but not send on this one).  You can't
> hard set to use a certain out of band DTMF method.  It should automatically
> negotiate.  You'll have to check the SIP signaling.
>
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Joe Loiacono  wrote:
>
>> Having difficulties with a third-party conference phone losing DTMF
>> capability.
>>
>> Does anyone know where to find these settings in CUCM?
>>
>> In band or Out of band DTMF tones
>> Length of tone on and off time
>> Out of band DTMF payload type
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Joe
>> ___
>> 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
>
>


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

Re: [cisco-voip] DTMF settings in CUCM

[Brian Meade]

CUCM will try to negotiate inband (RFC2833) and out of band.

I don't believe you can edit length of tone or on/off times for RFC2833.

To use true inband, you need a universal transcoder.

It tries to negotiate a few different methods such as Unsolicited Notify,
KPML, and SIP Info (I believe receive but not send on this one).  You can't
hard set to use a certain out of band DTMF method.  It should automatically
negotiate.  You'll have to check the SIP signaling.

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Joe Loiacono  wrote:

> Having difficulties with a third-party conference phone losing DTMF
> capability.
>
> Does anyone know where to find these settings in CUCM?
>
> In band or Out of band DTMF tones
> Length of tone on and off time
> Out of band DTMF payload type
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joe
> ___
> 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] Finesse setup and options

[Brian Meade]

You can remove that report/gadget from the agent configuration.  That way
they don't see Team State at all.

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Terry Oakley 
wrote:

> We are happily now using Finesse but are clearly in our infancy. One
> of the issues that we incurring is that agents in teams can see the other
> team members.   That is not a bad thing but some are now questioning what
> their team members are doing which again is not a bad thing but …..   We
> certainly can put them all  in individual teams and assign each of them to
> the CSQ but have any of you, who have much greater experience with Finesse
> than I,  know how I can keep them in one team but not allow them to see
> each other’s status.   That would make it easier for the supervisor to see
> all of their players but keep the anxiety level down within the locker room.
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] DTMF settings in CUCM

[Joe Loiacono]

Having difficulties with a third-party conference phone losing DTMF 
capability.

Does anyone know where to find these settings in CUCM?
 
In band or Out of band DTMF tones
Length of tone on and off time
Out of band DTMF payload type

Thanks,

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

[cisco-voip] Finesse setup and options

[Terry Oakley]

We are happily now using Finesse but are clearly in our infancy. One of the 
issues that we incurring is that agents in teams can see the other team 
members.   That is not a bad thing but some are now questioning what their team 
members are doing which again is not a bad thing but .   We certainly can 
put them all  in individual teams and assign each of them to the CSQ but have 
any of you, who have much greater experience with Finesse than I,  know how I 
can keep them in one team but not allow them to see each other's status.   That 
would make it easier for the supervisor to see all of their players but keep 
the anxiety level down within the locker room.

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

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

Re: [cisco-voip] SIP option ping prioritization

[Anthony Holloway]

I should have also mentioned that interface binding is very important not
only from where you'll source your OPTIONS messages, but also from where
you'll reply to them.  I've seen the layer 4 and down be correct due to
where the OPTIONS was received, but then layer 5 was displaying a different
IP address.  Make sure you bind on all dial-peers, but you only need
OPTIONS configured on outgoing dial-peers.

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 12:12 PM Anthony Holloway <
avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 1) It's a SIP Message, specifically the OPTIONS message
>
> 2) Typically you only prioritize voice traffic and not signaling, but you
> should still reserve bandwidth for signaling to ensure it's not starved.
> CUBE marks all signaling traffic as AF31 by default, but CS3 is the newer
> standard to go with.  Make sure you're QoS policy is matching on AF31
> and/or CS3 and reserving bandwidth for it.
>
> 3) In the absence of a session transport command, the default is UDP,
> that's typical for carrier facing SIP trunks.
>
> 4) I have not seen OPTIONS prioritized before. It's treated with the level
> of service as all SIP and therefore all signaling
>
> On thing people forget is to use a profile on dial-peers which reference
> server groups.
>
> See here for a little more info on that:
>
> https://supportforums.cisco.com/t5/video-over-ip/sip-options-ping-and-session-server-group-on-dial-peer/td-p/2994584
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 9:56 PM Ki Wi  wrote:
>
>> Hi Group,
>> I would like to find out if SIP option ping is a "ping" or a "sip
>> message" ?
>>
>> From the documents, it seems like it is a sip messages.
>>
>> My customer is facing issue with the dial-peers getting busy out during
>> WAN congestion. We would like to prioritize those messages as a WAN
>> provider but they are not able to give us the exact commands for the CE
>> router.
>>
>>  Currently this is the command on all their managed "voice gateway"
>>  * voice-class sip options-keepalive up-interval 120 down-interval 120
>> retry 2
>>
>> This means the "transport" mode is default. This make things more
>> complex, I have no idea it is TCP or UDP or ???
>>
>> With no access to customer network (unable to do wireshark), I would like
>> to see if there's anyone having the experience to prioritize those SIP
>> option ping packets?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Ki Wi
>> ___
>> 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] SIP option ping prioritization

[Anthony Holloway]

1) It's a SIP Message, specifically the OPTIONS message

2) Typically you only prioritize voice traffic and not signaling, but you
should still reserve bandwidth for signaling to ensure it's not starved.
CUBE marks all signaling traffic as AF31 by default, but CS3 is the newer
standard to go with.  Make sure you're QoS policy is matching on AF31
and/or CS3 and reserving bandwidth for it.

3) In the absence of a session transport command, the default is UDP,
that's typical for carrier facing SIP trunks.

4) I have not seen OPTIONS prioritized before. It's treated with the level
of service as all SIP and therefore all signaling

On thing people forget is to use a profile on dial-peers which reference
server groups.

See here for a little more info on that:
https://supportforums.cisco.com/t5/video-over-ip/sip-options-ping-and-session-server-group-on-dial-peer/td-p/2994584

On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 9:56 PM Ki Wi  wrote:

> Hi Group,
> I would like to find out if SIP option ping is a "ping" or a "sip message"
> ?
>
> From the documents, it seems like it is a sip messages.
>
> My customer is facing issue with the dial-peers getting busy out during
> WAN congestion. We would like to prioritize those messages as a WAN
> provider but they are not able to give us the exact commands for the CE
> router.
>
>  Currently this is the command on all their managed "voice gateway"
>  * voice-class sip options-keepalive up-interval 120 down-interval 120
> retry 2
>
> This means the "transport" mode is default. This make things more complex,
> I have no idea it is TCP or UDP or ???
>
> With no access to customer network (unable to do wireshark), I would like
> to see if there's anyone having the experience to prioritize those SIP
> option ping packets?
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Ki Wi
> ___
> 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] SIP option ping prioritization

[Anthony Holloway]

Just to clarify, UDP is default in CUBE and TCP is default in CUCM.

Actually, we should further clarify that by saying, these are the default
transport protocols for SIP UAC messages.  If either product were to
receive either UDP or TCP, it will respond with the same transport
protocol.  I.e., It wouldn't make sense to receive a UDP packet, and then
reply with TCP packet.

And I have to agree with Ryan that ACLs would not allow you to look at the
SIP Request line to determine if it's an OPTIONS dialog as opposed to an
INVITE or SUBSCRIBE.  Just treat all SIP the same, and by that I mean,
treat it like your typical signaling traffic.  CUBE does AF31 still, so you
might want to switch it to CS3 on your dial-peers or just have a Match-Any
with AF31 and CS3 in your class map.

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 1:43 AM Ryan Huff  wrote:

> The OPTIONS Ping will come across in the regular SIP stack
> (TCP:5060/TCP:5061 or UDP:5060 typically). Prioritization is a Quality of
> Service technique and not an Access Control technique. I don't think a
> standard ACL would look at the application layer header to differentiate
> SIP messages and offer priority of individual SIP messages.
>
> I'd look into making sure you are applying the correct signaling QoS to
> the ingress/egress links.
>
> -RH
>
> On Aug 27, 2017, at 11:31 PM, Ki Wi  wrote:
>
> Hi Saranyan,
> thanks! I would like to know how can I compose an access-list to detect
> SIP option ping and prioritize it.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:20 AM, saranyan k 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Ki Wi,
>>
>> OPTIONS ping is a SIP message. Ideally the transport mode of the message
>> is TCP or UDP based on the configuration done under voice service voip ->
>> sip.
>> Otherwise, we can configure a keepalive profile so that we can specify
>> the mode of transport for the OPTIONS keepalive messages.
>>
>> !
>>
>> voice class sip-options-keepalive 1
>>
>> transport tcp
>>
>> !
>>
>> Map the profile to any dial-peer:
>>
>> !
>>
>> dial-peer voice 1 voip
>>
>>  session protocol sipv2
>>
>>  incoming called-number 299
>>
>> * voice-class sip options-keepalive profile 1*
>>
>>  dtmf-relay rtp-nte sip-notify
>>
>>  codec g711ulaw
>>
>>  no vad
>>
>> !
>>
>> Say if the router is set to use UDP, its worth to give it a try with TCP.
>>
>> Please let me know if this helps.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Saranyan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Ki Wi  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Group,
>>> I would like to find out if SIP option ping is a "ping" or a "sip
>>> message" ?
>>>
>>> From the documents, it seems like it is a sip messages.
>>>
>>> My customer is facing issue with the dial-peers getting busy out during
>>> WAN congestion. We would like to prioritize those messages as a WAN
>>> provider but they are not able to give us the exact commands for the CE
>>> router.
>>>
>>>  Currently this is the command on all their managed "voice gateway"
>>>  * voice-class sip options-keepalive up-interval 120 down-interval 120
>>> retry 2
>>>
>>> This means the "transport" mode is default. This make things more
>>> complex, I have no idea it is TCP or UDP or ???
>>>
>>> With no access to customer network (unable to do wireshark), I would
>>> like to see if there's anyone having the experience to prioritize those SIP
>>> option ping packets?
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Ki Wi
>>>
>>> ___
>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Ki Wi
>
> ___
> 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] PLM 11.0 issues with CUC 11.5.1 SU3?

[Erick Bergquist]

When you apply the proper licensing for CUC, the encryption changes to
Enabled on it's own.

admin:utils cuc encryption status
Encryption Mode: Enabled

That was disabled before the licenses were synced.




On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Heim, Dennis  wrote:
> So if you upgrade CUC to SU3, and don't have the encryption loaded, it will 
> disable encryption?
>
> Dennis Heim | Emerging Technology Architect (Collaboration)
> World Wide Technology, Inc. | +1 314-212-1814
>
>
> "Worry less about who you might offend, and more about who you might inspire" 
> -- Tim Allen
> "When you have unlimited time, its easy" - Captain Chesley Sullenberger
> "There is a fine line between Wrong and Visionary. Unfortunately, you have to 
> be a visionary to see it." - Sheldon Cooper
> "The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we 
> miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." -- Michelangelo Buonarroti
> "We should transform the way we work" - Rowan Trollope
> "If you're not failing every now and again, it's a sign you're not doing 
> anything very innovative" - Woody Allen
>
> Click here to join me in my Collaboration Meeting Room
>
> -Original Message-
> From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of 
> Erick Bergquist
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 2:41 AM
> To: Charles Goldsmith 
> Cc: voip puck 
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] PLM 11.0 issues with CUC 11.5.1 SU3?
>
> Thanks Charles.  Rehosted Unity licenses to unity server w/added encryption 
> license and Unity is happy again.
>
> Weird it worked fine for a week before throwing a licensing error.
>
> Erick
>
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Erick Bergquist  wrote:
>> FWIW,
>>
>> This is the only paragraph in the CUC 11.5 SU3 release notes.
>> Encryption is disabled on CUC at moment.
>>
>> In earlier releases, by default encryption was enabled on Cisco Unity
>> Connection. However, Unity Connection 11.5(1) SU3 and later allows you
>> to enable or disable the encryption on restricted version of Cisco
>> Unity Connection to use the security modules. In Demo Mode, the
>> encryption is disabled by default. It means you are not allowed to use
>> the security modules of Cisco Unity Connection in Demo Mode. You can
>> enable the encryption on Unity Connection only when $0 ENC SKU/license
>> file is installed on the PLM. To enable or disable the encryption, a
>> new CLI command utils cuc encryption is introduced in Unity Connection
>> 11.5(1) SU3 and later.
>>
>>
>> admin:utils cuc encryption ?
>> utils cuc encryption [enable | disable | status] admin:utils cuc
>> encryption status
>>
>> Encryption Mode: Disabled
>>
>>
>> I'm not finding much yet on CUCM 11.0 talking to a PLM 11.5 with the
>> encryption license, if I rehost the licenses to the CUC PLM instance
>> will CUCM 11.0 sync fine?
>>
>> Or switch version reboot back to 9.x and upgrade unity to 11.5.1 SU2.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 11:57 PM, Erick Bergquist  wrote:
>>> Ok, I was thinking about it being that.  Should have stuck to CUC 11.5.1 
>>> SU2.
>>>
>>> It was working fine for a week. Weird.
>>>
>>> So I wonder if I can rehost the licenses to Unity Connection 11.5 SU3
>>> and have CUCM 11.0 talk to PLM on unity connection 11.5.1 SU3 fine?
>>>
>>> PLM is co-located on CUCM 11.0 right now (not standalone PLM server).
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 11:50 PM, Charles Goldsmith
>>>  wrote:
 11.5.1su3 requires PLM 11.5.1su2, due to the change with the
 encryption
 license:
 https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/plm/11_5_1_
 SU2/releasenotes/cplm_b_release-notes-cplm-1151su2/cplm_b_release-no
 tes-cplm-1151su2_chapter_01.html
 Look at the first Note.

 YMMV, but I ran into a bug when I upgraded a PLM to su2 recently, it
 wouldn't switch version, even after a reboot, got a vague error
 about locking the database.  After waiting a few hours with no
 change, booted off of the recovery CD and forced the switch.  No
 issues after that.  I had a good backup, so wasn't concerned about forcing 
 it.

 On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Erick Bergquist
 
 wrote:
>
> Anyone having any issues with CUC 11.5.1 SU3 and PLM on a 11.0.1?
>
> (thinking about rehosting licenses to the 11.5.1 SU3 CUC node)
>
> It has been working fine for a week since the upgrade and today CUC
> threw a license error.
>
> PLM 11.0 shows a "Application Error" for the Unity Connection instance.
>
> I deleted the product instance from PLM, added it back and it picks
> up correct 11.5 version fine then on Sync gives "Application Error".
>
> I've reset the unity servers and call manager acting as PLM and
> same thing.
>
> I reset PLM to default demo 

Re: [cisco-voip] PLM 11.0 issues with CUC 11.5.1 SU3?

[Heim, Dennis]

So if you upgrade CUC to SU3, and don't have the encryption loaded, it will 
disable encryption?

Dennis Heim | Emerging Technology Architect (Collaboration)
World Wide Technology, Inc. | +1 314-212-1814


"Worry less about who you might offend, and more about who you might inspire" 
-- Tim Allen
"When you have unlimited time, its easy" - Captain Chesley Sullenberger
"There is a fine line between Wrong and Visionary. Unfortunately, you have to 
be a visionary to see it." - Sheldon Cooper
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss 
it, but that it is too low and we reach it." -- Michelangelo Buonarroti
"We should transform the way we work" - Rowan Trollope
"If you're not failing every now and again, it's a sign you're not doing 
anything very innovative" - Woody Allen

Click here to join me in my Collaboration Meeting Room

-Original Message-
From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Erick 
Bergquist
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 2:41 AM
To: Charles Goldsmith 
Cc: voip puck 
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] PLM 11.0 issues with CUC 11.5.1 SU3?

Thanks Charles.  Rehosted Unity licenses to unity server w/added encryption 
license and Unity is happy again.

Weird it worked fine for a week before throwing a licensing error.

Erick

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Erick Bergquist  wrote:
> FWIW,
>
> This is the only paragraph in the CUC 11.5 SU3 release notes.
> Encryption is disabled on CUC at moment.
>
> In earlier releases, by default encryption was enabled on Cisco Unity 
> Connection. However, Unity Connection 11.5(1) SU3 and later allows you 
> to enable or disable the encryption on restricted version of Cisco 
> Unity Connection to use the security modules. In Demo Mode, the 
> encryption is disabled by default. It means you are not allowed to use 
> the security modules of Cisco Unity Connection in Demo Mode. You can 
> enable the encryption on Unity Connection only when $0 ENC SKU/license 
> file is installed on the PLM. To enable or disable the encryption, a 
> new CLI command utils cuc encryption is introduced in Unity Connection 
> 11.5(1) SU3 and later.
>
>
> admin:utils cuc encryption ?
> utils cuc encryption [enable | disable | status] admin:utils cuc 
> encryption status
>
> Encryption Mode: Disabled
>
>
> I'm not finding much yet on CUCM 11.0 talking to a PLM 11.5 with the 
> encryption license, if I rehost the licenses to the CUC PLM instance 
> will CUCM 11.0 sync fine?
>
> Or switch version reboot back to 9.x and upgrade unity to 11.5.1 SU2.
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 11:57 PM, Erick Bergquist  wrote:
>> Ok, I was thinking about it being that.  Should have stuck to CUC 11.5.1 SU2.
>>
>> It was working fine for a week. Weird.
>>
>> So I wonder if I can rehost the licenses to Unity Connection 11.5 SU3 
>> and have CUCM 11.0 talk to PLM on unity connection 11.5.1 SU3 fine?
>>
>> PLM is co-located on CUCM 11.0 right now (not standalone PLM server).
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 11:50 PM, Charles Goldsmith 
>>  wrote:
>>> 11.5.1su3 requires PLM 11.5.1su2, due to the change with the 
>>> encryption
>>> license:
>>> https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/plm/11_5_1_
>>> SU2/releasenotes/cplm_b_release-notes-cplm-1151su2/cplm_b_release-no
>>> tes-cplm-1151su2_chapter_01.html
>>> Look at the first Note.
>>>
>>> YMMV, but I ran into a bug when I upgraded a PLM to su2 recently, it 
>>> wouldn't switch version, even after a reboot, got a vague error 
>>> about locking the database.  After waiting a few hours with no 
>>> change, booted off of the recovery CD and forced the switch.  No 
>>> issues after that.  I had a good backup, so wasn't concerned about forcing 
>>> it.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Erick Bergquist 
>>> 
>>> wrote:

 Anyone having any issues with CUC 11.5.1 SU3 and PLM on a 11.0.1?

 (thinking about rehosting licenses to the 11.5.1 SU3 CUC node)

 It has been working fine for a week since the upgrade and today CUC 
 threw a license error.

 PLM 11.0 shows a "Application Error" for the Unity Connection instance.

 I deleted the product instance from PLM, added it back and it picks 
 up correct 11.5 version fine then on Sync gives "Application Error".

 I've reset the unity servers and call manager acting as PLM and 
 same thing.

 I reset PLM to default demo mode, deleted the Product instances, 
 and applied the licenses again.  I added Product instances back and 
 it is not liking  Unity still. PLM has all 11.x licenses. PLM 
 detects the unity version 11.5 correct but doesn't sync.

 Reason we're using CUCM 11.0 over 11.5 is due to phone depreciation 
 in
 11.5 with some model phones.

 Erick
 

Re: [cisco-voip] UCM Upgrade Poll

[Lelio Fulgenzi]

Super! Thanks.

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 28, 2017, at 12:30 AM, Charles Goldsmith 
> wrote:

I should have looked at that link a bit closer, it doesn't mention the cop 
file: 
http://www.cisco.com/web/software/282204704/18582/CleanupCommonCOPfilev1.4.pdf

Which is the 3rd method, but there is a caveat, so read it closely.

On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 11:25 PM, Charles Goldsmith 
> wrote:
There is!

http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/Unified_CM_L2_Upgrade_Disk_Space_issues#Free_Up_Space_for_Unified_CM_L2_Upgrade.C2.A0

That entire page is good reading.


On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 11:20 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi 
> wrote:
Are there instructions on how to free up disk space?

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 27, 2017, at 11:18 PM, Erick Bergquist 
> wrote:

I've done a few dozen inplace upgrades of CUCM, Unity, UCCX with existing VMs 
with no real issues over the past few years. Talking 8.x to 10.x  or 11.x or 
9.x to 10/11.x.

Issues encountered:

Freeing up disk space on existing VM for the RU/SU to install on a few upgrades 
(more of a slow down)

Recently had issue with IM 9.x to 11.x where a invalid ntp entry was in the 
platformcfg.xml XML file that there is a bug ID on that TAC had to get in with 
root access to remove. After that the IM inplace upgrade went fine.

And a few non-upgrade issues involving license matters and getting correct 
number of licenses.

I was reading another post about 12.0 using CentOS now, need to read that over 
more and see what is changing with upgrade process.


My only wish was if these would go faster. Maybe have an incremental patch with 
just fixes instead of a full size SU/install file and reinstalling every file - 
especially for SU patches within same major version.

YMMV, Erick


On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Anthony Holloway 
> wrote:
Why not just come along with me on my next upgrade.  You can feel the 
pain...err excitement, of planning and executing an upgrade in the real world.  
;)

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 9:52 AM Ryan Ratliff (rratliff) 
> wrote:
Thanks everyone for the feedback.

We are looking at ways to make upgrades easier and stories like these are very 
helpful.

-Ryan

On Aug 24, 2017, at 10:17 AM, Scott Voll 
> wrote:

1. I'm guessing we are 10% True bugs and 90% environment, but I will agree with 
other comments about DNS and NTP being a dumb reason to fail

2. as for time, over the years we used to spend over 6 months on upgrades.. 
we are down to about 2 months.  in our enviroment we have to document all the 
changes before so it can be communicated to the end user.  Researching for the 
answers has moved from Anthony's 100 documents to just opening a TAC case.  It 
has become way to time consuming to find all the right doc's to get the correct 
answer.

YMMV

Scott


On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Anthony Holloway 
> wrote:
Wow, it's kind of cool that you're even asking.  Thanks for that.

Already I can see this is going to be a wide gap in responses. Partner vs end 
user, this customer vs that customer, this version vs that version, this 
scenario vs that one, and on, and on, and on.

1) I feel like it's always a bug (100%), in that, developers should code 
solutions that can work around most issues.  E.g., I had an upgrade fail on a 
CUCM because the ntp was 0.us.pool.ntp.org, despite 
CUCM happily syncing to it in the current version.  OR Common partition not 
having enough space, when devs could just purge old logs to make room, or 
simply make better logs to begin with (I do admit, moving to compress logs 
[TAR/GZ] was sweet)

2) This is a painful one for me, but I put in a lot of time preparing for an 
upgrade.  A large portion of the time is, in my opinion, wasted finding the 
right documentation and then trying to interpret it.  Here's a fun one: there's 
over 100 documents an Engineer needs to reference in preparation for what I 
would consider a low-medium level environment.  I've posted this before, but 
I'll post it again, I have a matrix of documents I need to reference during the 
planning and execution phase of an upgrade:

[http://cisco-voip.markmail.org/download.xqy?id=rrs3zlxbamemgodr=1]


On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:38 AM Ryan Ratliff (rratliff) 
> wrote:
Quick 2 question poll, feel free to unicast or share your response with the 
group.

1. When you or your customers have a UCM or IMP upgrade fail, what percentage 
of failures are due to a bug vs something in the environment (user error, db 
updates, etc)?
% bug:
% not a bug:
Yes it’s a very 

Re: [cisco-voip] UCM Upgrade Poll

[Erick Bergquist]

Yep. Besides the steps in docs above,

The expand space cop file if the upgrade needs you to change the disk space
for new version per OVA template specs.

The RTMT low watermark trick works very well, but sometimes doesn't free up
quite enough so then you need to manually go find files to clear.

Check your MoH files -- once had a system with dozens of larger size MoH
files. Had to temp remove some of them to gain space and put them back
afterward.

TFTP files -- I usually delete the larger ones (DX650s, CIUS, etc).   (file
list tftp * detail size) if needed. Usually, a very small % of disk
reclaimed on newer versions.

Check for packet capture files under platform/cli



On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 10:30 PM, Charles Goldsmith 
wrote:

> I should have looked at that link a bit closer, it doesn't mention the cop
> file: http://www.cisco.com/web/software/282204704/18582/
> CleanupCommonCOPfilev1.4.pdf
>
> Which is the 3rd method, but there is a caveat, so read it closely.
>
> On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 11:25 PM, Charles Goldsmith 
> wrote:
>
>> There is!
>>
>> http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/Unified_CM_L2_Upgrade_Disk_Spa
>> ce_issues#Free_Up_Space_for_Unified_CM_L2_Upgrade.C2.A0
>>
>> That entire page is good reading.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 11:20 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Are there instructions on how to free up disk space?
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Aug 27, 2017, at 11:18 PM, Erick Bergquist 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've done a few dozen inplace upgrades of CUCM, Unity, UCCX with
>>> existing VMs with no real issues over the past few years. Talking 8.x to
>>> 10.x  or 11.x or 9.x to 10/11.x.
>>>
>>> Issues encountered:
>>>
>>> Freeing up disk space on existing VM for the RU/SU to install on a few
>>> upgrades (more of a slow down)
>>>
>>> Recently had issue with IM 9.x to 11.x where a invalid ntp entry was
>>> in the platformcfg.xml XML file that there is a bug ID on that TAC had to
>>> get in with root access to remove. After that the IM inplace upgrade went
>>> fine.
>>>
>>> And a few non-upgrade issues involving license matters and getting
>>> correct number of licenses.
>>>
>>> I was reading another post about 12.0 using CentOS now, need to read
>>> that over more and see what is changing with upgrade process.
>>>
>>>
>>> My only wish was if these would go faster. Maybe have an incremental
>>> patch with just fixes instead of a full size SU/install file and
>>> reinstalling every file - especially for SU patches within same major
>>> version.
>>>
>>> YMMV, Erick
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Anthony Holloway <
>>> avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Why not just come along with me on my next upgrade.  You can feel the
 pain...err excitement, of planning and executing an upgrade in the real
 world.  ;)

 On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 9:52 AM Ryan Ratliff (rratliff) <
 rratl...@cisco.com> wrote:

> Thanks everyone for the feedback.
>
> We are looking at ways to make upgrades easier and stories like these
> are very helpful.
>
> -Ryan
>
> On Aug 24, 2017, at 10:17 AM, Scott Voll  wrote:
>
> 1. I'm guessing we are 10% True bugs and 90% environment, but I will
> agree with other comments about DNS and NTP being a dumb reason to fail
>
> 2. as for time, over the years we used to spend over 6 months on
> upgrades.. we are down to about 2 months.  in our enviroment we have 
> to
> document all the changes before so it can be communicated to the end user.
> Researching for the answers has moved from Anthony's 100 documents to just
> opening a TAC case.  It has become way to time consuming to find all the
> right doc's to get the correct answer.
>
> YMMV
>
> Scott
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Anthony Holloway <
> avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Wow, it's kind of cool that you're even asking.  Thanks for that.
>>
>> Already I can see this is going to be a wide gap in responses.
>> Partner vs end user, this customer vs that customer, this version vs that
>> version, this scenario vs that one, and on, and on, and on.
>>
>> 1) I feel like it's always a bug (100%), in that, developers should
>> code solutions that can work around most issues.  E.g., I had an upgrade
>> fail on a CUCM because the ntp was 0.us.pool.ntp.org, despite CUCM
>> happily syncing to it in the current version.  OR Common partition not
>> having enough space, when devs could just purge old logs to make room, or
>> simply make better logs to begin with (I do admit, moving to compress 
>> logs
>> [TAR/GZ] was sweet)
>>
>> 2) This is a painful one for me, but I put in a lot of time preparing
>> for an upgrade.  A large portion of the time is, in my opinion, wasted
>> 

Re: [cisco-voip] SIP option ping prioritization

[Ryan Huff]

The OPTIONS Ping will come across in the regular SIP stack (TCP:5060/TCP:5061 
or UDP:5060 typically). Prioritization is a Quality of Service technique and 
not an Access Control technique. I don't think a standard ACL would look at the 
application layer header to differentiate SIP messages and offer priority of 
individual SIP messages.

I'd look into making sure you are applying the correct signaling QoS to the 
ingress/egress links.

-RH

On Aug 27, 2017, at 11:31 PM, Ki Wi 
> wrote:

Hi Saranyan,
thanks! I would like to know how can I compose an access-list to detect SIP 
option ping and prioritize it.




On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:20 AM, saranyan k 
> wrote:
Hi Ki Wi,

OPTIONS ping is a SIP message. Ideally the transport mode of the message is TCP 
or UDP based on the configuration done under voice service voip -> sip.
Otherwise, we can configure a keepalive profile so that we can specify the mode 
of transport for the OPTIONS keepalive messages.

!

voice class sip-options-keepalive 1

transport tcp

!

Map the profile to any dial-peer:

!

dial-peer voice 1 voip

 session protocol sipv2

 incoming called-number 299

 voice-class sip options-keepalive profile 1

 dtmf-relay rtp-nte sip-notify

 codec g711ulaw

 no vad

!

Say if the router is set to use UDP, its worth to give it a try with TCP.

Please let me know if this helps.


Regards,

Saranyan




On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Ki Wi 
> wrote:
Hi Group,
I would like to find out if SIP option ping is a "ping" or a "sip message" ?

From the documents, it seems like it is a sip messages.

My customer is facing issue with the dial-peers getting busy out during WAN 
congestion. We would like to prioritize those messages as a WAN provider but 
they are not able to give us the exact commands for the CE router.

 Currently this is the command on all their managed "voice gateway"
 * voice-class sip options-keepalive up-interval 120 down-interval 120 retry 2

This means the "transport" mode is default. This make things more complex, I 
have no idea it is TCP or UDP or ???

With no access to customer network (unable to do wireshark), I would like to 
see if there's anyone having the experience to prioritize those SIP option ping 
packets?


--
Regards,
Ki Wi

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





--
Regards,
Ki Wi
___
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] PLM 11.0 issues with CUC 11.5.1 SU3?

[Erick Bergquist]

Thanks Charles.  Rehosted Unity licenses to unity server w/added
encryption license and Unity is happy again.

Weird it worked fine for a week before throwing a licensing error.

Erick

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Erick Bergquist  wrote:
> FWIW,
>
> This is the only paragraph in the CUC 11.5 SU3 release notes.
> Encryption is disabled on CUC at moment.
>
> In earlier releases, by default encryption was enabled on Cisco Unity
> Connection. However, Unity Connection 11.5(1) SU3 and later allows you
> to enable or disable the encryption on restricted version of Cisco
> Unity Connection to use the security modules. In Demo Mode, the
> encryption is disabled by default. It means you are not allowed to use
> the security modules of Cisco Unity Connection in Demo Mode. You can
> enable the encryption on Unity Connection only when $0 ENC SKU/license
> file is installed on the PLM. To enable or disable the encryption, a
> new CLI command utils
> cuc encryption is introduced in Unity Connection 11.5(1) SU3 and later.
>
>
> admin:utils cuc encryption ?
> utils cuc encryption [enable | disable | status]
> admin:utils cuc encryption status
>
> Encryption Mode: Disabled
>
>
> I'm not finding much yet on CUCM 11.0 talking to a PLM 11.5 with the
> encryption license, if I rehost the licenses to the CUC PLM instance
> will CUCM 11.0 sync fine?
>
> Or switch version reboot back to 9.x and upgrade unity to 11.5.1 SU2.
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 11:57 PM, Erick Bergquist  wrote:
>> Ok, I was thinking about it being that.  Should have stuck to CUC 11.5.1 SU2.
>>
>> It was working fine for a week. Weird.
>>
>> So I wonder if I can rehost the licenses to Unity Connection 11.5 SU3
>> and have CUCM 11.0 talk to PLM on unity connection 11.5.1 SU3 fine?
>>
>> PLM is co-located on CUCM 11.0 right now (not standalone PLM server).
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 11:50 PM, Charles Goldsmith
>>  wrote:
>>> 11.5.1su3 requires PLM 11.5.1su2, due to the change with the encryption
>>> license:
>>> https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/plm/11_5_1_SU2/releasenotes/cplm_b_release-notes-cplm-1151su2/cplm_b_release-notes-cplm-1151su2_chapter_01.html
>>> Look at the first Note.
>>>
>>> YMMV, but I ran into a bug when I upgraded a PLM to su2 recently, it
>>> wouldn't switch version, even after a reboot, got a vague error about
>>> locking the database.  After waiting a few hours with no change, booted off
>>> of the recovery CD and forced the switch.  No issues after that.  I had a
>>> good backup, so wasn't concerned about forcing it.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Erick Bergquist 
>>> wrote:

 Anyone having any issues with CUC 11.5.1 SU3 and PLM on a 11.0.1?

 (thinking about rehosting licenses to the 11.5.1 SU3 CUC node)

 It has been working fine for a week since the upgrade and today CUC
 threw a license error.

 PLM 11.0 shows a "Application Error" for the Unity Connection instance.

 I deleted the product instance from PLM, added it back and it picks up
 correct 11.5 version fine then on Sync gives "Application Error".

 I've reset the unity servers and call manager acting as PLM and same
 thing.

 I reset PLM to default demo mode, deleted the Product instances, and
 applied the licenses again.  I added Product instances back and it is
 not liking  Unity still. PLM has all 11.x licenses. PLM detects the
 unity version 11.5 correct but doesn't sync.

 Reason we're using CUCM 11.0 over 11.5 is due to phone depreciation in
 11.5 with some model phones.

 Erick
 ___
 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] PLM 11.0 issues with CUC 11.5.1 SU3?

[Erick Bergquist]

FWIW,

This is the only paragraph in the CUC 11.5 SU3 release notes.
Encryption is disabled on CUC at moment.

In earlier releases, by default encryption was enabled on Cisco Unity
Connection. However, Unity Connection 11.5(1) SU3 and later allows you
to enable or disable the encryption on restricted version of Cisco
Unity Connection to use the security modules. In Demo Mode, the
encryption is disabled by default. It means you are not allowed to use
the security modules of Cisco Unity Connection in Demo Mode. You can
enable the encryption on Unity Connection only when $0 ENC SKU/license
file is installed on the PLM. To enable or disable the encryption, a
new CLI command utils
cuc encryption is introduced in Unity Connection 11.5(1) SU3 and later.


admin:utils cuc encryption ?
utils cuc encryption [enable | disable | status]
admin:utils cuc encryption status

Encryption Mode: Disabled


I'm not finding much yet on CUCM 11.0 talking to a PLM 11.5 with the
encryption license, if I rehost the licenses to the CUC PLM instance
will CUCM 11.0 sync fine?

Or switch version reboot back to 9.x and upgrade unity to 11.5.1 SU2.




On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 11:57 PM, Erick Bergquist  wrote:
> Ok, I was thinking about it being that.  Should have stuck to CUC 11.5.1 SU2.
>
> It was working fine for a week. Weird.
>
> So I wonder if I can rehost the licenses to Unity Connection 11.5 SU3
> and have CUCM 11.0 talk to PLM on unity connection 11.5.1 SU3 fine?
>
> PLM is co-located on CUCM 11.0 right now (not standalone PLM server).
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 11:50 PM, Charles Goldsmith
>  wrote:
>> 11.5.1su3 requires PLM 11.5.1su2, due to the change with the encryption
>> license:
>> https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/plm/11_5_1_SU2/releasenotes/cplm_b_release-notes-cplm-1151su2/cplm_b_release-notes-cplm-1151su2_chapter_01.html
>> Look at the first Note.
>>
>> YMMV, but I ran into a bug when I upgraded a PLM to su2 recently, it
>> wouldn't switch version, even after a reboot, got a vague error about
>> locking the database.  After waiting a few hours with no change, booted off
>> of the recovery CD and forced the switch.  No issues after that.  I had a
>> good backup, so wasn't concerned about forcing it.
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Erick Bergquist 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Anyone having any issues with CUC 11.5.1 SU3 and PLM on a 11.0.1?
>>>
>>> (thinking about rehosting licenses to the 11.5.1 SU3 CUC node)
>>>
>>> It has been working fine for a week since the upgrade and today CUC
>>> threw a license error.
>>>
>>> PLM 11.0 shows a "Application Error" for the Unity Connection instance.
>>>
>>> I deleted the product instance from PLM, added it back and it picks up
>>> correct 11.5 version fine then on Sync gives "Application Error".
>>>
>>> I've reset the unity servers and call manager acting as PLM and same
>>> thing.
>>>
>>> I reset PLM to default demo mode, deleted the Product instances, and
>>> applied the licenses again.  I added Product instances back and it is
>>> not liking  Unity still. PLM has all 11.x licenses. PLM detects the
>>> unity version 11.5 correct but doesn't sync.
>>>
>>> Reason we're using CUCM 11.0 over 11.5 is due to phone depreciation in
>>> 11.5 with some model phones.
>>>
>>> Erick
>>> ___
>>> 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] PLM 11.0 issues with CUC 11.5.1 SU3?

[Charles Goldsmith]

I would expect that would work, rehosting the licenses over to CUC.  I've
had to do that in similar circumstances where we needed to upgrade CUC
before CUCM.  Either that or build a dedicated PLM and rehost the licenses
there, kinda your choice.  It does take up an extra vCPU that is sometimes
not available.  With 12.0 changing things around, I wouldn't waste time
with the dedicated PLM though.

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 12:57 AM, Erick Bergquist 
wrote:

> Ok, I was thinking about it being that.  Should have stuck to CUC 11.5.1
> SU2.
>
> It was working fine for a week. Weird.
>
> So I wonder if I can rehost the licenses to Unity Connection 11.5 SU3
> and have CUCM 11.0 talk to PLM on unity connection 11.5.1 SU3 fine?
>
> PLM is co-located on CUCM 11.0 right now (not standalone PLM server).
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 11:50 PM, Charles Goldsmith
>  wrote:
> > 11.5.1su3 requires PLM 11.5.1su2, due to the change with the encryption
> > license:
> > https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/
> plm/11_5_1_SU2/releasenotes/cplm_b_release-notes-cplm-
> 1151su2/cplm_b_release-notes-cplm-1151su2_chapter_01.html
> > Look at the first Note.
> >
> > YMMV, but I ran into a bug when I upgraded a PLM to su2 recently, it
> > wouldn't switch version, even after a reboot, got a vague error about
> > locking the database.  After waiting a few hours with no change, booted
> off
> > of the recovery CD and forced the switch.  No issues after that.  I had a
> > good backup, so wasn't concerned about forcing it.
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Erick Bergquist 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Anyone having any issues with CUC 11.5.1 SU3 and PLM on a 11.0.1?
> >>
> >> (thinking about rehosting licenses to the 11.5.1 SU3 CUC node)
> >>
> >> It has been working fine for a week since the upgrade and today CUC
> >> threw a license error.
> >>
> >> PLM 11.0 shows a "Application Error" for the Unity Connection instance.
> >>
> >> I deleted the product instance from PLM, added it back and it picks up
> >> correct 11.5 version fine then on Sync gives "Application Error".
> >>
> >> I've reset the unity servers and call manager acting as PLM and same
> >> thing.
> >>
> >> I reset PLM to default demo mode, deleted the Product instances, and
> >> applied the licenses again.  I added Product instances back and it is
> >> not liking  Unity still. PLM has all 11.x licenses. PLM detects the
> >> unity version 11.5 correct but doesn't sync.
> >>
> >> Reason we're using CUCM 11.0 over 11.5 is due to phone depreciation in
> >> 11.5 with some model phones.
> >>
> >> Erick
> >> ___
> >> 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