Re: [cisco-voip] [EXTERNAL] Cost-Effective Public Certificate Authority for CUCM certificates

[Anthony Holloway]

It's a good thing you don't have to prove ownership for collab certs then.
I have not bought through namecheap myself, but I have witnessed the
mistake someone has made trying to get domain validated, or EV certs for
their collab gear when it's not needed, and yeah, it seemed like a hassle
and it took a few days or more.

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 4:40 PM UC Penguin  wrote:

> Namecheap cert process is a PITA. Haven’t used them for UC servers but
> helped a friend with their website after they already bought them from NC.
>
> You can only have it verify ownership with certain predefined by them
> emails at your domain, or dns/web.
>
> Namecheap is a good domain registrar but I’d personally steer clear of
> their other services.
>
> On Mar 30, 2020, at 14:57, Brian Meade  wrote:
>
> 
> Namecheap seems to be the cheapest option I've found from some quick
> looking.  They seem to resell Comodo certificates but cheaper than Comodo
> offers them.
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 2:45 PM Jonatan Quezada <
> jonatan.quez...@chemeketa.edu> wrote:
>
>> Im totally looking to update all of mine I think we use digi-cert,
>> pleasea let us know what you find out :)
>> Cheers!
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:43 AM Brian Meade  wrote:
>>
>>> Does anyone know of any public certificate authorities that have cheaper
>>> multi-server SAN certificate options?  I had seen some in the past that let
>>> you buy a wildcard and then can submit CSR's against that still but having
>>> trouble finding that now.
>>>
>>> Trying to avoid buying 4 multi-server certificates to cover CUCM
>>> Tomcat/Unity Connection Tomcat/UCCX Tomcat/IM XMPP.
>>> ___
>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> During this time of remote work, There will be the need for connectivity
>> to other devices such as a cell phone. If you require assistance forwarding
>> your desk phone to a remote cell or message phone, please email with desk
>> number and where we are forwarding calls. I can do these remotely.
>>
>> Johnny Q
>> Voice Technology Analyst II
>> Chemeketa Community College
>> johnn...@chemeketa.edu
>> Building 22 Room 130
>> Work 5033995294
>> Cell 5035769873
>> FAX 5033995549
>>
>> ___
> 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] Cost-Effective Public Certificate Authority for CUCM certificates

[Lelio Fulgenzi]

I’m sad that InCommon doesn’t provide service to Canadian EDUs. ☹

From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of Matthew 
Ballard
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 2:59 PM
To: 'Brian Meade' ; cisco-voip voyp list 

Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Cost-Effective Public Certificate Authority for CUCM 
certificates

We used to use DigiCert Wildcard which offers that (where you can issue 
multiple certificates with different private keys from the same wildcard 
cert/purchase).

We switched to using InCommon certificates, which it looks like your University 
also subscribes to.  You should be able to get them internally from whomever 
licensed that there, as it’s a flat fee service for unlimited certificates.

Matthew Ballard
Director of Technology Infrastructure
Information Systems
Otis College of Art and Design
mball...@otis.edu



From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Brian Meade
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 11:42 AM
To: cisco-voip voyp list 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: [cisco-voip] Cost-Effective Public Certificate Authority for CUCM 
certificates

Does anyone know of any public certificate authorities that have cheaper 
multi-server SAN certificate options?  I had seen some in the past that let you 
buy a wildcard and then can submit CSR's against that still but having trouble 
finding that now.

Trying to avoid buying 4 multi-server certificates to cover CUCM Tomcat/Unity 
Connection Tomcat/UCCX Tomcat/IM XMPP.
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] [EXTERNAL] Cost-Effective Public Certificate Authority for CUCM certificates

[UC Penguin]

Namecheap cert process is a PITA. Haven’t used them for UC servers but helped a 
friend with their website after they already bought them from NC.

You can only have it verify ownership with certain predefined by them emails at 
your domain, or dns/web.

Namecheap is a good domain registrar but I’d personally steer clear of their 
other services.

> On Mar 30, 2020, at 14:57, Brian Meade  wrote:
> 
> 
> Namecheap seems to be the cheapest option I've found from some quick looking. 
>  They seem to resell Comodo certificates but cheaper than Comodo offers them.
> 
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 2:45 PM Jonatan Quezada 
>>  wrote:
>> Im totally looking to update all of mine I think we use digi-cert, pleasea 
>> let us know what you find out :)
>> Cheers!
>> 
>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:43 AM Brian Meade  wrote:
>>> Does anyone know of any public certificate authorities that have cheaper 
>>> multi-server SAN certificate options?  I had seen some in the past that let 
>>> you buy a wildcard and then can submit CSR's against that still but having 
>>> trouble finding that now.
>>> 
>>> Trying to avoid buying 4 multi-server certificates to cover CUCM 
>>> Tomcat/Unity Connection Tomcat/UCCX Tomcat/IM XMPP.
>>> ___
>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> During this time of remote work, There will be the need for connectivity to 
>> other devices such as a cell phone. If you require assistance forwarding 
>> your desk phone to a remote cell or message phone, please email with desk 
>> number and where we are forwarding calls. I can do these remotely.
>> 
>> Johnny Q
>> Voice Technology Analyst II
>> Chemeketa Community College
>> johnn...@chemeketa.edu
>> Building 22 Room 130
>> Work 5033995294 
>> Cell 5035769873
>> FAX 5033995549
>> 
> ___
> 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] [EXTERNAL] Re: Cost-Effective Public Certificate Authority for CUCM certificates

[Brian Meade]

In this case, we're doing public certificates internally as well for CUCM
Tomcat, Unity Connection Tomcat, UCCX Tomcat, and IM CUP-XMPP.

Adding the multiple presence domains is pretty easy on the IM side and it
will automatically add SAN's for those domains in the CSR.

Expressway-E will also automatically add all domains to the CSR.

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 4:07 PM Jonatan Quezada <
jonatan.quez...@chemeketa.edu> wrote:

> Brian, How challenging was it to do the jabber on all three domains?
>
> Where do you need the multiDomain cert, on the VCS-edge connector right?
> Im looking to see what it would take to get this going for our remote
> workers even though it seems
> like there are few things to make sure are in place first.
>
> for so far its the :
>
> certs for dual domain- how
> provision jabber users
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:28 PM Brian Meade  wrote:
>
>> I was originally going to go with that wildcard option but this customer
>> has 3 different presence domains to match their email domains which makes
>> the CUP-XMPP cert more complicated.
>>
>> This is my personal email so no access to InCommon certificates
>> unfortunately.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 2:59 PM Matthew Ballard 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We used to use DigiCert Wildcard which offers that (where you can issue
>>> multiple certificates with different private keys from the same wildcard
>>> cert/purchase).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We switched to using InCommon certificates, which it looks like your
>>> University also subscribes to.  You should be able to get them internally
>>> from whomever licensed that there, as it’s a flat fee service for unlimited
>>> certificates.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Matthew Ballard
>>>
>>> Director of Technology Infrastructure
>>>
>>> Information Systems
>>>
>>> Otis College of Art and Design
>>>
>>> mball...@otis.edu
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Brian
>>> Meade
>>> *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2020 11:42 AM
>>> *To:* cisco-voip voyp list 
>>> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] Cost-Effective Public Certificate Authority for
>>> CUCM certificates
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Does anyone know of any public certificate authorities that have cheaper
>>> multi-server SAN certificate options?  I had seen some in the past that let
>>> you buy a wildcard and then can submit CSR's against that still but having
>>> trouble finding that now.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Trying to avoid buying 4 multi-server certificates to cover CUCM
>>> Tomcat/Unity Connection Tomcat/UCCX Tomcat/IM XMPP.
>>>
>> ___
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>
>
>
> --
> During this time of remote work, There will be the need for connectivity
> to other devices such as a cell phone. If you require assistance forwarding
> your desk phone to a remote cell or message phone, please email with desk
> number and where we are forwarding calls. I can do these remotely.
>
> Johnny Q
> Voice Technology Analyst II
> Chemeketa Community College
> johnn...@chemeketa.edu
> Building 22 Room 130
> Work 5033995294
> Cell 5035769873
> FAX 5033995549
>
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] [EXTERNAL] Re: Cost-Effective Public Certificate Authority for CUCM certificates

[Jonatan Quezada]

Brian, How challenging was it to do the jabber on all three domains?

Where do you need the multiDomain cert, on the VCS-edge connector right? Im
looking to see what it would take to get this going for our remote workers
even though it seems
like there are few things to make sure are in place first.

for so far its the :

certs for dual domain- how
provision jabber users


On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:28 PM Brian Meade  wrote:

> I was originally going to go with that wildcard option but this customer
> has 3 different presence domains to match their email domains which makes
> the CUP-XMPP cert more complicated.
>
> This is my personal email so no access to InCommon certificates
> unfortunately.
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 2:59 PM Matthew Ballard  wrote:
>
>> We used to use DigiCert Wildcard which offers that (where you can issue
>> multiple certificates with different private keys from the same wildcard
>> cert/purchase).
>>
>>
>>
>> We switched to using InCommon certificates, which it looks like your
>> University also subscribes to.  You should be able to get them internally
>> from whomever licensed that there, as it’s a flat fee service for unlimited
>> certificates.
>>
>>
>>
>> Matthew Ballard
>>
>> Director of Technology Infrastructure
>>
>> Information Systems
>>
>> Otis College of Art and Design
>>
>> mball...@otis.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Brian
>> Meade
>> *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2020 11:42 AM
>> *To:* cisco-voip voyp list 
>> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] Cost-Effective Public Certificate Authority for
>> CUCM certificates
>>
>>
>>
>> Does anyone know of any public certificate authorities that have cheaper
>> multi-server SAN certificate options?  I had seen some in the past that let
>> you buy a wildcard and then can submit CSR's against that still but having
>> trouble finding that now.
>>
>>
>>
>> Trying to avoid buying 4 multi-server certificates to cover CUCM
>> Tomcat/Unity Connection Tomcat/UCCX Tomcat/IM XMPP.
>>
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>


-- 
During this time of remote work, There will be the need for connectivity to
other devices such as a cell phone. If you require assistance forwarding
your desk phone to a remote cell or message phone, please email with desk
number and where we are forwarding calls. I can do these remotely.

Johnny Q
Voice Technology Analyst II
Chemeketa Community College
johnn...@chemeketa.edu
Building 22 Room 130
Work 5033995294
Cell 5035769873
FAX 5033995549
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] [EXTERNAL] Cost-Effective Public Certificate Authority for CUCM certificates

[Brian Meade]

Namecheap seems to be the cheapest option I've found from some quick
looking.  They seem to resell Comodo certificates but cheaper than Comodo
offers them.

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 2:45 PM Jonatan Quezada <
jonatan.quez...@chemeketa.edu> wrote:

> Im totally looking to update all of mine I think we use digi-cert, pleasea
> let us know what you find out :)
> Cheers!
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:43 AM Brian Meade  wrote:
>
>> Does anyone know of any public certificate authorities that have cheaper
>> multi-server SAN certificate options?  I had seen some in the past that let
>> you buy a wildcard and then can submit CSR's against that still but having
>> trouble finding that now.
>>
>> Trying to avoid buying 4 multi-server certificates to cover CUCM
>> Tomcat/Unity Connection Tomcat/UCCX Tomcat/IM XMPP.
>> ___
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>
>
>
> --
> During this time of remote work, There will be the need for connectivity
> to other devices such as a cell phone. If you require assistance forwarding
> your desk phone to a remote cell or message phone, please email with desk
> number and where we are forwarding calls. I can do these remotely.
>
> Johnny Q
> Voice Technology Analyst II
> Chemeketa Community College
> johnn...@chemeketa.edu
> Building 22 Room 130
> Work 5033995294
> Cell 5035769873
> FAX 5033995549
>
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] Cost-Effective Public Certificate Authority for CUCM certificates

[Brian Meade]

I was originally going to go with that wildcard option but this customer
has 3 different presence domains to match their email domains which makes
the CUP-XMPP cert more complicated.

This is my personal email so no access to InCommon certificates
unfortunately.

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 2:59 PM Matthew Ballard  wrote:

> We used to use DigiCert Wildcard which offers that (where you can issue
> multiple certificates with different private keys from the same wildcard
> cert/purchase).
>
>
>
> We switched to using InCommon certificates, which it looks like your
> University also subscribes to.  You should be able to get them internally
> from whomever licensed that there, as it’s a flat fee service for unlimited
> certificates.
>
>
>
> Matthew Ballard
>
> Director of Technology Infrastructure
>
> Information Systems
>
> Otis College of Art and Design
>
> mball...@otis.edu
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Brian
> Meade
> *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2020 11:42 AM
> *To:* cisco-voip voyp list 
> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] Cost-Effective Public Certificate Authority for
> CUCM certificates
>
>
>
> Does anyone know of any public certificate authorities that have cheaper
> multi-server SAN certificate options?  I had seen some in the past that let
> you buy a wildcard and then can submit CSR's against that still but having
> trouble finding that now.
>
>
>
> Trying to avoid buying 4 multi-server certificates to cover CUCM
> Tomcat/Unity Connection Tomcat/UCCX Tomcat/IM XMPP.
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] Cost-Effective Public Certificate Authority for CUCM certificates

[Matthew Ballard]

We used to use DigiCert Wildcard which offers that (where you can issue 
multiple certificates with different private keys from the same wildcard 
cert/purchase).

We switched to using InCommon certificates, which it looks like your University 
also subscribes to.  You should be able to get them internally from whomever 
licensed that there, as it’s a flat fee service for unlimited certificates.

Matthew Ballard
Director of Technology Infrastructure
Information Systems
Otis College of Art and Design
mball...@otis.edu



From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of Brian Meade
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 11:42 AM
To: cisco-voip voyp list 
Subject: [cisco-voip] Cost-Effective Public Certificate Authority for CUCM 
certificates

Does anyone know of any public certificate authorities that have cheaper 
multi-server SAN certificate options?  I had seen some in the past that let you 
buy a wildcard and then can submit CSR's against that still but having trouble 
finding that now.

Trying to avoid buying 4 multi-server certificates to cover CUCM Tomcat/Unity 
Connection Tomcat/UCCX Tomcat/IM XMPP.
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] [EXTERNAL] Cost-Effective Public Certificate Authority for CUCM certificates

[Jonatan Quezada]

Im totally looking to update all of mine I think we use digi-cert, pleasea
let us know what you find out :)
Cheers!

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:43 AM Brian Meade  wrote:

> Does anyone know of any public certificate authorities that have cheaper
> multi-server SAN certificate options?  I had seen some in the past that let
> you buy a wildcard and then can submit CSR's against that still but having
> trouble finding that now.
>
> Trying to avoid buying 4 multi-server certificates to cover CUCM
> Tomcat/Unity Connection Tomcat/UCCX Tomcat/IM XMPP.
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>


-- 
During this time of remote work, There will be the need for connectivity to
other devices such as a cell phone. If you require assistance forwarding
your desk phone to a remote cell or message phone, please email with desk
number and where we are forwarding calls. I can do these remotely.

Johnny Q
Voice Technology Analyst II
Chemeketa Community College
johnn...@chemeketa.edu
Building 22 Room 130
Work 5033995294
Cell 5035769873
FAX 5033995549
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

[cisco-voip] Cost-Effective Public Certificate Authority for CUCM certificates

[Brian Meade]

Does anyone know of any public certificate authorities that have cheaper
multi-server SAN certificate options?  I had seen some in the past that let
you buy a wildcard and then can submit CSR's against that still but having
trouble finding that now.

Trying to avoid buying 4 multi-server certificates to cover CUCM
Tomcat/Unity Connection Tomcat/UCCX Tomcat/IM XMPP.
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] [External] Re: CCX phone agent over MRA?

[Lelio Fulgenzi]

WE’re at SU6, so I’m hoping we’re ok. WE only recently saw a core dump. Hadn’t 
see one for ages before. Hopefullly unrelated. Or, won’t be further aggravated.

From: Pawlowski, Adam 
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 2:22 PM
To: Lelio Fulgenzi ; Aman Chugh 
Cc: voyp list, cisco-voip 
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] [External] Re: CCX phone agent over MRA?

We are running this in production with UCM 11.5, CCX 12.0, and Expressway 
X12.5.6 without any issues, CCM cores, or other problems.

If that core out bug is impacting in your version of the UCM then sure maybe 
avoid this, but at least per my own case we have not had any trouble with this 
path headers being enabled.



From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 2:19 PM
To: Aman Chugh mailto:aman.ch...@gmail.com>>
Cc: voyp list, cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] [External] Re: CCX phone agent over MRA?

Thanks guys.

I should have read that section more closely. Darn.

From: Aman Chugh mailto:aman.ch...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 2:18 PM
To: Lelio Fulgenzi mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>>
Cc: voyp list, cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] [External] Re: CCX phone agent over MRA?


It should affect all clients which are registered over MRA with multiple lines.

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 2:06 PM Hunter Fuller 
mailto:hf0...@uah.edu>> wrote:
If you can do a tcpdump between expressway and call manager you will see a 404 
and it would verify that. We didn’t see it on Jabber because we just hadn’t 
tried it - only needed multiple lines on hard phones.

Or you can just change the setting on expressway, reregister Jabber, and hope 
for the best. Depends on what kind of lifestyle you subscribe to, I suppose.

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 13:01 Lelio Fulgenzi 
mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>> wrote:
Um, ok. I just got a call from someone saying secondary lines are not working 
on Jabber desktop via MRA.

I was under the impression from our discussion below that this only affects the 
8800?

But it affects Jabber too?

From: Lelio Fulgenzi mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 9:52 PM
To: Lelio Fulgenzi mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>>; Wakelin, 
Frank mailto:fwake...@richmond.ca>>
Cc: voyp list, cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] CCX phone agent over MRA?

Yeah. It exists! (on 8.10)

From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 9:41 PM
To: Wakelin, Frank mailto:fwake...@richmond.ca>>
Cc: voyp list, cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CCX phone agent over MRA?

Wow. Interesting. Will have to read the X10.4 (*cough*) guide to see if a 
similar feature exists.

Thanks for this.
Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 23, 2020, at 9:29 PM, Wakelin, Frank 
mailto:fwake...@richmond.ca>> wrote:
Absolutely, here’s what Aman sent me:

Anther thing of note is use of SIP Path header on Expressway C. This may be 
needed to turned on if you multiple lines on 88xx phone. I have seen an issue 
when were we not able to ring second line on the phone when this was turned off 
on Expressway C.

You will need that turned up on Expressway C under unified communication - 
configuration.

I ran into this in testing in my environment few days back.

There are certain version requirements to have this turned on with CUCM.  Page 
33

https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/expressway/config_guide/X8-11/Mobile-Remote-Access-via-Expressway-Deployment-Guide-X8-11-4.pdf


---
Frank Wakelin – Senior Network Analyst
Information Technology | City of Richmond

Office +16042764190
Mobile +17788394693
fwake...@richmond.ca

From: Lelio Fulgenzi mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>>
Sent: March 23, 2020 6:23 PM
To: Wakelin, Frank mailto:fwake...@richmond.ca>>
Cc: voyp list, cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CCX phone agent over MRA?


Um, so, outside of ccx, getting multiline 8800s working over MRA requires extra 
config?

Can you share any tech notes ?


Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 23, 2020, at 8:53 PM, Wakelin, Frank 
mailto:fwake...@richmond.ca>> wrote:
Yeah, once again as it turns out it was the Cisco TAC engineer not really 
knowing the product they are apparently supporting – which is fine, but they 
also never escalated the call to someone who does when the question was over 
their head either. – heavy sigh –

As it turns out we generally configure all of our agents contact centre lines 
as their second line.  After my post Aman reached out to me with a note about 
the use of the SIP Path header on Expressway C as this is needed to support 
multiple lines on 88xx phone. The lack of multiline support was what was 
killing the call to the agent extension (on the second line of the phone) when 
it was presented by CCX.  I had a chance 

Re: [cisco-voip] [External] Re: CCX phone agent over MRA?

[Pawlowski, Adam]

We are running this in production with UCM 11.5, CCX 12.0, and Expressway 
X12.5.6 without any issues, CCM cores, or other problems.

If that core out bug is impacting in your version of the UCM then sure maybe 
avoid this, but at least per my own case we have not had any trouble with this 
path headers being enabled.



From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of Lelio 
Fulgenzi
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 2:19 PM
To: Aman Chugh 
Cc: voyp list, cisco-voip 
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] [External] Re: CCX phone agent over MRA?

Thanks guys.

I should have read that section more closely. Darn.

From: Aman Chugh mailto:aman.ch...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 2:18 PM
To: Lelio Fulgenzi mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>>
Cc: voyp list, cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] [External] Re: CCX phone agent over MRA?


It should affect all clients which are registered over MRA with multiple lines.

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 2:06 PM Hunter Fuller 
mailto:hf0...@uah.edu>> wrote:
If you can do a tcpdump between expressway and call manager you will see a 404 
and it would verify that. We didn’t see it on Jabber because we just hadn’t 
tried it - only needed multiple lines on hard phones.

Or you can just change the setting on expressway, reregister Jabber, and hope 
for the best. Depends on what kind of lifestyle you subscribe to, I suppose.

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 13:01 Lelio Fulgenzi 
mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>> wrote:
Um, ok. I just got a call from someone saying secondary lines are not working 
on Jabber desktop via MRA.

I was under the impression from our discussion below that this only affects the 
8800?

But it affects Jabber too?

From: Lelio Fulgenzi mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 9:52 PM
To: Lelio Fulgenzi mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>>; Wakelin, 
Frank mailto:fwake...@richmond.ca>>
Cc: voyp list, cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] CCX phone agent over MRA?

Yeah. It exists! (on 8.10)

From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 9:41 PM
To: Wakelin, Frank mailto:fwake...@richmond.ca>>
Cc: voyp list, cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CCX phone agent over MRA?

Wow. Interesting. Will have to read the X10.4 (*cough*) guide to see if a 
similar feature exists.

Thanks for this.
Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 23, 2020, at 9:29 PM, Wakelin, Frank 
mailto:fwake...@richmond.ca>> wrote:
Absolutely, here’s what Aman sent me:

Anther thing of note is use of SIP Path header on Expressway C. This may be 
needed to turned on if you multiple lines on 88xx phone. I have seen an issue 
when were we not able to ring second line on the phone when this was turned off 
on Expressway C.

You will need that turned up on Expressway C under unified communication - 
configuration.

I ran into this in testing in my environment few days back.

There are certain version requirements to have this turned on with CUCM.  Page 
33

https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/expressway/config_guide/X8-11/Mobile-Remote-Access-via-Expressway-Deployment-Guide-X8-11-4.pdf


---
Frank Wakelin – Senior Network Analyst
Information Technology | City of Richmond

Office +16042764190
Mobile +17788394693
fwake...@richmond.ca

From: Lelio Fulgenzi mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>>
Sent: March 23, 2020 6:23 PM
To: Wakelin, Frank mailto:fwake...@richmond.ca>>
Cc: voyp list, cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CCX phone agent over MRA?


Um, so, outside of ccx, getting multiline 8800s working over MRA requires extra 
config?

Can you share any tech notes ?


Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 23, 2020, at 8:53 PM, Wakelin, Frank 
mailto:fwake...@richmond.ca>> wrote:
Yeah, once again as it turns out it was the Cisco TAC engineer not really 
knowing the product they are apparently supporting – which is fine, but they 
also never escalated the call to someone who does when the question was over 
their head either. – heavy sigh –

As it turns out we generally configure all of our agents contact centre lines 
as their second line.  After my post Aman reached out to me with a note about 
the use of the SIP Path header on Expressway C as this is needed to support 
multiple lines on 88xx phone. The lack of multiline support was what was 
killing the call to the agent extension (on the second line of the phone) when 
it was presented by CCX.  I had a chance to enable the SIP path header today 
and successfully tested CCX.

So thanks all for your assistance and more so your insistence that this is 
supported/working in your environments.  Thanks Aman for the mention of the SIP 
path header!

---
Frank Wakelin – Senior Network Analyst
Information Technology | City of Richmond

Office +16042764190
Mobile +17788394693
fwake...@richmond.ca

From: cisco-voip 

Re: [cisco-voip] [External] Re: CCX phone agent over MRA?

[Aman Chugh]

It should affect all clients which are registered over MRA with multiple
lines.

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 2:06 PM Hunter Fuller  wrote:

> If you can do a tcpdump between expressway and call manager you will see a
> 404 and it would verify that. We didn’t see it on Jabber because we just
> hadn’t tried it - only needed multiple lines on hard phones.
>
> Or you can just change the setting on expressway, reregister Jabber, and
> hope for the best. Depends on what kind of lifestyle you subscribe to, I
> suppose.
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 13:01 Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
>
>> Um, ok. I just got a call from someone saying secondary lines are not
>> working on Jabber desktop via MRA.
>>
>>
>>
>> I was under the impression from our discussion below that this only
>> affects the 8800?
>>
>>
>>
>> But it affects Jabber too?
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Lelio Fulgenzi 
>> *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2020 9:52 PM
>> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi ; Wakelin, Frank <
>> fwake...@richmond.ca>
>> *Cc:* voyp list, cisco-voip 
>> *Subject:* RE: [cisco-voip] CCX phone agent over MRA?
>>
>>
>>
>> Yeah. It exists! (on *8.*10)
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Lelio
>> Fulgenzi
>> *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2020 9:41 PM
>> *To:* Wakelin, Frank 
>> *Cc:* voyp list, cisco-voip 
>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] CCX phone agent over MRA?
>>
>>
>>
>> Wow. Interesting. Will have to read the X10.4 (*cough*) guide to see if a
>> similar feature exists.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for this.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>> On Mar 23, 2020, at 9:29 PM, Wakelin, Frank  wrote:
>>
>> Absolutely, here’s what Aman sent me:
>>
>>
>>
>> Anther thing of note is use of *SIP Path header* on Expressway C. This
>> may be needed to turned on if you multiple lines on 88xx phone. I have seen
>> an issue when were we not able to ring second line on the phone when this
>> was turned off on Expressway C.
>>
>>
>>
>> You will need that turned up on Expressway C under unified communication
>> - configuration.
>>
>>
>>
>> I ran into this in testing in my environment few days back.
>>
>>
>>
>> There are certain version requirements to have this turned on with CUCM.
>> Page 33
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/expressway/config_guide/X8-11/Mobile-Remote-Access-via-Expressway-Deployment-Guide-X8-11-4.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Frank Wakelin – Senior Network Analyst
>>
>> Information Technology | City of Richmond
>>
>>
>>
>> Office +16042764190
>>
>> Mobile +17788394693
>>
>> fwake...@richmond.ca
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Lelio Fulgenzi 
>> *Sent:* March 23, 2020 6:23 PM
>> *To:* Wakelin, Frank 
>> *Cc:* voyp list, cisco-voip 
>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] CCX phone agent over MRA?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Um, so, outside of ccx, getting multiline 8800s working over MRA requires
>> extra config?
>>
>>
>>
>> Can you share any tech notes ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>> On Mar 23, 2020, at 8:53 PM, Wakelin, Frank  wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, once again as it turns out it was the Cisco TAC engineer not really
>> knowing the product they are apparently supporting – which is fine, but
>> they also never escalated the call to someone who does when the question
>> was over their head either. – heavy sigh –
>>
>>
>>
>> As it turns out we generally configure all of our agents contact centre
>> lines as their second line.  After my post Aman reached out to me with a
>> note about the use of the *SIP Path header* on Expressway C as this is
>> needed to support multiple lines on 88xx phone. The lack of multiline
>> support was what was killing the call to the agent extension (on the second
>> line of the phone) when it was presented by CCX.  I had a chance to enable
>> the SIP path header today and successfully tested CCX.
>>
>>
>>
>> So thanks all for your assistance and more so your insistence that this
>> is supported/working in your environments.  Thanks Aman for the mention of
>> the SIP path header!
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Frank Wakelin – Senior Network Analyst
>>
>> Information Technology | City of Richmond
>>
>>
>>
>> Office +16042764190
>>
>> Mobile +17788394693
>>
>> fwake...@richmond.ca
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of 
>> *Anthony
>> Holloway
>> *Sent:* March 23, 2020 5:02 PM
>> *To:* NateCCIE 
>> *Cc:* voyp list, cisco-voip 
>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] CCX phone agent over MRA?
>>
>>
>>
>> Yep, remote control via SIP from CUCM.
>>
>>
>>
>> I just tried this again but on a CUCM 11.5, UCCX 12.0 and Expressway
>> X12.5.5.
>>
>>
>>
>> I pulled the traces off of two phones: one on-prem, one MRA, and the
>> messages were the same.
>>
>>
>>
>> This was Finesse telling the phone (Agent ext 2000) to answer a call, and
>> thus CUCM using out of dialog REFER containing remote call control commands
>> to answer the call.
>>
>>
>>
>> REFER
>> sip:e367249a-d9c8-4fbc-8f79-33b3e1be127f@10.1.75.44:50868;transport=tcp
>> SIP/2.0^M
>> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 10.1.70.110:5060;branch=z9hG4bKec56650110b79^M
>> From: ;tag=790972480^M
>> To: ^M
>> Call-ID: 

Re: [cisco-voip] [External] Re: CCX phone agent over MRA?

[Lelio Fulgenzi]

Thanks guys.

I should have read that section more closely. Darn.

From: Aman Chugh 
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 2:18 PM
To: Lelio Fulgenzi 
Cc: voyp list, cisco-voip 
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] [External] Re: CCX phone agent over MRA?


It should affect all clients which are registered over MRA with multiple lines.

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 2:06 PM Hunter Fuller 
mailto:hf0...@uah.edu>> wrote:
If you can do a tcpdump between expressway and call manager you will see a 404 
and it would verify that. We didn’t see it on Jabber because we just hadn’t 
tried it - only needed multiple lines on hard phones.

Or you can just change the setting on expressway, reregister Jabber, and hope 
for the best. Depends on what kind of lifestyle you subscribe to, I suppose.

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 13:01 Lelio Fulgenzi 
mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>> wrote:
Um, ok. I just got a call from someone saying secondary lines are not working 
on Jabber desktop via MRA.

I was under the impression from our discussion below that this only affects the 
8800?

But it affects Jabber too?

From: Lelio Fulgenzi mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 9:52 PM
To: Lelio Fulgenzi mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>>; Wakelin, 
Frank mailto:fwake...@richmond.ca>>
Cc: voyp list, cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] CCX phone agent over MRA?

Yeah. It exists! (on 8.10)

From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 9:41 PM
To: Wakelin, Frank mailto:fwake...@richmond.ca>>
Cc: voyp list, cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CCX phone agent over MRA?

Wow. Interesting. Will have to read the X10.4 (*cough*) guide to see if a 
similar feature exists.

Thanks for this.
Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 23, 2020, at 9:29 PM, Wakelin, Frank 
mailto:fwake...@richmond.ca>> wrote:
Absolutely, here’s what Aman sent me:

Anther thing of note is use of SIP Path header on Expressway C. This may be 
needed to turned on if you multiple lines on 88xx phone. I have seen an issue 
when were we not able to ring second line on the phone when this was turned off 
on Expressway C.

You will need that turned up on Expressway C under unified communication - 
configuration.

I ran into this in testing in my environment few days back.

There are certain version requirements to have this turned on with CUCM.  Page 
33

https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/expressway/config_guide/X8-11/Mobile-Remote-Access-via-Expressway-Deployment-Guide-X8-11-4.pdf


---
Frank Wakelin – Senior Network Analyst
Information Technology | City of Richmond

Office +16042764190
Mobile +17788394693
fwake...@richmond.ca

From: Lelio Fulgenzi mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>>
Sent: March 23, 2020 6:23 PM
To: Wakelin, Frank mailto:fwake...@richmond.ca>>
Cc: voyp list, cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CCX phone agent over MRA?


Um, so, outside of ccx, getting multiline 8800s working over MRA requires extra 
config?

Can you share any tech notes ?


Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 23, 2020, at 8:53 PM, Wakelin, Frank 
mailto:fwake...@richmond.ca>> wrote:
Yeah, once again as it turns out it was the Cisco TAC engineer not really 
knowing the product they are apparently supporting – which is fine, but they 
also never escalated the call to someone who does when the question was over 
their head either. – heavy sigh –

As it turns out we generally configure all of our agents contact centre lines 
as their second line.  After my post Aman reached out to me with a note about 
the use of the SIP Path header on Expressway C as this is needed to support 
multiple lines on 88xx phone. The lack of multiline support was what was 
killing the call to the agent extension (on the second line of the phone) when 
it was presented by CCX.  I had a chance to enable the SIP path header today 
and successfully tested CCX.

So thanks all for your assistance and more so your insistence that this is 
supported/working in your environments.  Thanks Aman for the mention of the SIP 
path header!

---
Frank Wakelin – Senior Network Analyst
Information Technology | City of Richmond

Office +16042764190
Mobile +17788394693
fwake...@richmond.ca

From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Anthony Holloway
Sent: March 23, 2020 5:02 PM
To: NateCCIE mailto:natec...@gmail.com>>
Cc: voyp list, cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CCX phone agent over MRA?

Yep, remote control via SIP from CUCM.

I just tried this again but on a CUCM 11.5, UCCX 12.0 and Expressway X12.5.5.

I pulled the traces off of two phones: one on-prem, one MRA, and the messages 
were the same.

This was Finesse telling the phone (Agent ext 2000) to answer a call, and thus 
CUCM using out of dialog REFER containing remote call control commands to 

Re: [cisco-voip] [External] Re: CCX phone agent over MRA?

[Hunter Fuller]

If you can do a tcpdump between expressway and call manager you will see a
404 and it would verify that. We didn’t see it on Jabber because we just
hadn’t tried it - only needed multiple lines on hard phones.

Or you can just change the setting on expressway, reregister Jabber, and
hope for the best. Depends on what kind of lifestyle you subscribe to, I
suppose.

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 13:01 Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:

> Um, ok. I just got a call from someone saying secondary lines are not
> working on Jabber desktop via MRA.
>
>
>
> I was under the impression from our discussion below that this only
> affects the 8800?
>
>
>
> But it affects Jabber too?
>
>
>
> *From:* Lelio Fulgenzi 
> *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2020 9:52 PM
> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi ; Wakelin, Frank <
> fwake...@richmond.ca>
> *Cc:* voyp list, cisco-voip 
> *Subject:* RE: [cisco-voip] CCX phone agent over MRA?
>
>
>
> Yeah. It exists! (on *8.*10)
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Lelio
> Fulgenzi
> *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2020 9:41 PM
> *To:* Wakelin, Frank 
> *Cc:* voyp list, cisco-voip 
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] CCX phone agent over MRA?
>
>
>
> Wow. Interesting. Will have to read the X10.4 (*cough*) guide to see if a
> similar feature exists.
>
>
>
> Thanks for this.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Mar 23, 2020, at 9:29 PM, Wakelin, Frank  wrote:
>
> Absolutely, here’s what Aman sent me:
>
>
>
> Anther thing of note is use of *SIP Path header* on Expressway C. This
> may be needed to turned on if you multiple lines on 88xx phone. I have seen
> an issue when were we not able to ring second line on the phone when this
> was turned off on Expressway C.
>
>
>
> You will need that turned up on Expressway C under unified communication -
> configuration.
>
>
>
> I ran into this in testing in my environment few days back.
>
>
>
> There are certain version requirements to have this turned on with CUCM.
> Page 33
>
>
>
>
> https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/expressway/config_guide/X8-11/Mobile-Remote-Access-via-Expressway-Deployment-Guide-X8-11-4.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Frank Wakelin – Senior Network Analyst
>
> Information Technology | City of Richmond
>
>
>
> Office +16042764190
>
> Mobile +17788394693
>
> fwake...@richmond.ca
>
>
>
> *From:* Lelio Fulgenzi 
> *Sent:* March 23, 2020 6:23 PM
> *To:* Wakelin, Frank 
> *Cc:* voyp list, cisco-voip 
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] CCX phone agent over MRA?
>
>
>
>
>
> Um, so, outside of ccx, getting multiline 8800s working over MRA requires
> extra config?
>
>
>
> Can you share any tech notes ?
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Mar 23, 2020, at 8:53 PM, Wakelin, Frank  wrote:
>
> Yeah, once again as it turns out it was the Cisco TAC engineer not really
> knowing the product they are apparently supporting – which is fine, but
> they also never escalated the call to someone who does when the question
> was over their head either. – heavy sigh –
>
>
>
> As it turns out we generally configure all of our agents contact centre
> lines as their second line.  After my post Aman reached out to me with a
> note about the use of the *SIP Path header* on Expressway C as this is
> needed to support multiple lines on 88xx phone. The lack of multiline
> support was what was killing the call to the agent extension (on the second
> line of the phone) when it was presented by CCX.  I had a chance to enable
> the SIP path header today and successfully tested CCX.
>
>
>
> So thanks all for your assistance and more so your insistence that this is
> supported/working in your environments.  Thanks Aman for the mention of the
> SIP path header!
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Frank Wakelin – Senior Network Analyst
>
> Information Technology | City of Richmond
>
>
>
> Office +16042764190
>
> Mobile +17788394693
>
> fwake...@richmond.ca
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Anthony
> Holloway
> *Sent:* March 23, 2020 5:02 PM
> *To:* NateCCIE 
> *Cc:* voyp list, cisco-voip 
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] CCX phone agent over MRA?
>
>
>
> Yep, remote control via SIP from CUCM.
>
>
>
> I just tried this again but on a CUCM 11.5, UCCX 12.0 and Expressway
> X12.5.5.
>
>
>
> I pulled the traces off of two phones: one on-prem, one MRA, and the
> messages were the same.
>
>
>
> This was Finesse telling the phone (Agent ext 2000) to answer a call, and
> thus CUCM using out of dialog REFER containing remote call control commands
> to answer the call.
>
>
>
> REFER
> sip:e367249a-d9c8-4fbc-8f79-33b3e1be127f@10.1.75.44:50868;transport=tcp
> SIP/2.0^M
> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 10.1.70.110:5060;branch=z9hG4bKec56650110b79^M
> From: ;tag=790972480^M
> To: ^M
> Call-ID: 4412b800-e7914b99-de968-6e46010a@10.1.70.110^M
> CSeq: 101 REFER^M
> Max-Forwards: 70^M
> Contact: ^M
> User-Agent: Cisco-CUCM11.5^M
> Require: norefersub^M
> Expires: 0^M
> Refer-To: cid:1234567890@10.1.70.110^M
> Content-Id: <1234567890@10.1.70.110>^M
> Content-Type: application/x-cisco-remotecc-request+xml^M
> Referred-By: ^M
> Content-Length: 340^M

Re: [cisco-voip] CCX phone agent over MRA?

[Lelio Fulgenzi]

Um, ok. I just got a call from someone saying secondary lines are not working 
on Jabber desktop via MRA.

I was under the impression from our discussion below that this only affects the 
8800?

But it affects Jabber too?

From: Lelio Fulgenzi 
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 9:52 PM
To: Lelio Fulgenzi ; Wakelin, Frank 
Cc: voyp list, cisco-voip 
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] CCX phone agent over MRA?

Yeah. It exists! (on 8.10)

From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 9:41 PM
To: Wakelin, Frank mailto:fwake...@richmond.ca>>
Cc: voyp list, cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CCX phone agent over MRA?

Wow. Interesting. Will have to read the X10.4 (*cough*) guide to see if a 
similar feature exists.

Thanks for this.
Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 23, 2020, at 9:29 PM, Wakelin, Frank 
mailto:fwake...@richmond.ca>> wrote:
Absolutely, here’s what Aman sent me:

Anther thing of note is use of SIP Path header on Expressway C. This may be 
needed to turned on if you multiple lines on 88xx phone. I have seen an issue 
when were we not able to ring second line on the phone when this was turned off 
on Expressway C.

You will need that turned up on Expressway C under unified communication - 
configuration.

I ran into this in testing in my environment few days back.

There are certain version requirements to have this turned on with CUCM.  Page 
33

https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/expressway/config_guide/X8-11/Mobile-Remote-Access-via-Expressway-Deployment-Guide-X8-11-4.pdf


---
Frank Wakelin – Senior Network Analyst
Information Technology | City of Richmond

Office +16042764190
Mobile +17788394693
fwake...@richmond.ca

From: Lelio Fulgenzi mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>>
Sent: March 23, 2020 6:23 PM
To: Wakelin, Frank mailto:fwake...@richmond.ca>>
Cc: voyp list, cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CCX phone agent over MRA?


Um, so, outside of ccx, getting multiline 8800s working over MRA requires extra 
config?

Can you share any tech notes ?


Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 23, 2020, at 8:53 PM, Wakelin, Frank 
mailto:fwake...@richmond.ca>> wrote:
Yeah, once again as it turns out it was the Cisco TAC engineer not really 
knowing the product they are apparently supporting – which is fine, but they 
also never escalated the call to someone who does when the question was over 
their head either. – heavy sigh –

As it turns out we generally configure all of our agents contact centre lines 
as their second line.  After my post Aman reached out to me with a note about 
the use of the SIP Path header on Expressway C as this is needed to support 
multiple lines on 88xx phone. The lack of multiline support was what was 
killing the call to the agent extension (on the second line of the phone) when 
it was presented by CCX.  I had a chance to enable the SIP path header today 
and successfully tested CCX.

So thanks all for your assistance and more so your insistence that this is 
supported/working in your environments.  Thanks Aman for the mention of the SIP 
path header!

---
Frank Wakelin – Senior Network Analyst
Information Technology | City of Richmond

Office +16042764190
Mobile +17788394693
fwake...@richmond.ca

From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Anthony Holloway
Sent: March 23, 2020 5:02 PM
To: NateCCIE mailto:natec...@gmail.com>>
Cc: voyp list, cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CCX phone agent over MRA?

Yep, remote control via SIP from CUCM.

I just tried this again but on a CUCM 11.5, UCCX 12.0 and Expressway X12.5.5.

I pulled the traces off of two phones: one on-prem, one MRA, and the messages 
were the same.

This was Finesse telling the phone (Agent ext 2000) to answer a call, and thus 
CUCM using out of dialog REFER containing remote call control commands to 
answer the call.

REFER sip:e367249a-d9c8-4fbc-8f79-33b3e1be127f@10.1.75.44:50868;transport=tcp 
SIP/2.0^M
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 10.1.70.110:5060;branch=z9hG4bKec56650110b79^M
From: mailto:sip%3A2000@10.1.70.110>>;tag=790972480^M
To: mailto:sip%3A2000@10.1.75.44>>^M
Call-ID: 
4412b800-e7914b99-de968-6e46010a@10.1.70.110^M
CSeq: 101 REFER^M
Max-Forwards: 70^M
Contact: ^M
User-Agent: Cisco-CUCM11.5^M
Require: norefersub^M
Expires: 0^M
Refer-To: cid:1234567890@10.1.70.110^M
Content-Id: <1234567890@10.1.70.110>^M
Content-Type: application/x-cisco-remotecc-request+xml^M
Referred-By: mailto:sip%3A2000@10.1.70.110>>^M
Content-Length: 340^M
^M



 
   
 
42e18b00-e7914b97-de965-6e46010a@10.1.70.110
 2490017~9e5ce725-d89d-4564-a3be-db63e3605d34-42471213
 

Re: [cisco-voip] SX 20 and MS Teams

[Terry Oakley via cisco-voip]

Well a little ole Finesse/cert issue took up my entire weekend.Literally
all of it with exception of about 10 hours.   So now switching what is left
of my brain to looking at our SX 20 outbound calling with emphasis on
connecting to external video endpoints.   When we did have it functioning
and quite well it to make an outbound call we would append @vcs.rdc to the
'dial string' and we could connect.  Now after a couple of Call Manager,
IM and Expressway upgrades that no longer is working.   I am slowly
working through the setup docs but if any of you have any thoughts or ideas
I would appreciate it.  

 

Our setup..

 

WebEx 4.x on prem setup

Expressway Core and Edge X 12.5.7

CUCM 12.5 SU2 (that was the entire weekend of fun and frivolity.  L

IM and Presence 12.5 SU 2

SX  20

DX 80 (waiting for license)

 

 

Terry

 

 

 

From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of Terry
Oakley via cisco-voip
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2020 3:29 PM
To: Mark H. Turpin ; 'voip puck'

Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SX 20 and MS Teams

 


CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Thank you Mark.. appreciate you stepping in.   I believe we have the
capacity for the amount it will be used.   If you are around on Monday would
you be willing to have a quick WebEx and we can see what I might be missing
on the configuration.   When I try and call out it keep getting call cannot
be complete unless I am strictly calling a phone/mobile or similar.   

Battling a Finesse/Certificate issue today so not sure how long that is
going to take and need some off time tomorrow.  J

 

Terry

 

From: Mark H. Turpin mailto:mtur...@covene.com> > 
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 3:11 PM
To: 'voip puck' ; Terry Oakley
mailto:terry.oak...@rdc.ab.ca> >
Subject: Re: SX 20 and MS Teams

 


CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Terry,

 

You've got everything you need to do video meetings quite well the only
concern might be the capacity with your on-prem CWMS. Do you feel you have
sufficient capacity ports/processor-wise for your user community? 

 

There are free 90-day Webex trials you could stand up in the cloud if
there's a concern there. If people aren't doing much Webex using your
on-prem systems today, it might be the fastest road to Rome...

 

Regarding registration placement, I'd suggest putting the SX and DX on CUCM
vs. Expressway. Your Expressway deployment should've included the trunks
you'll need to make b2b calls and/or calls to Webex cloud.

 

Depending on how your CWMS is deployed, you may or may not have the IRP
which will provide connectivity for remote folks. Your Expressways would
really only be in use if you'll have remote video users calling into your
internal network, or you need to call other organizations' Webex / or
on-premise video endpoints.

 

Are you planning on running the DX80 off-net / at someone's home, etc.? I
saw you mention MRA, so I wanted to ask.

 

I'm not sure how much you care about the SX20/DX80 being able to join a
Microsoft Teams meeting. I'm a hardcore Cisco Webex guy but I have to
acknowledge, there's a company called Pexip that made a bridging solution
which you can use to gateway calls and be the connection broker between your
Cisco / Expressway infrastructure and Teams. If you need OBTP into Teams
meetings, we made some software to schedule & enable that .

 

But more importantly, we decided we're going to doing everything
covid-related for free, so I'm happy to jump on a Webex and help you out as
much as I can at no charge.

 

  _  

From: cisco-voip mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net> > on behalf of Terry Oakley via
cisco-voip mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net> >
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 10:29 PM
To: 'voip puck' mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net> >
Subject: [cisco-voip] SX 20 and MS Teams 

 

*** EXTERNAL EMAIL - DO NOT CLICK LINKS *** 

I first of all again want to thank this brilliant community of very
knowledgeable administrators.You have solved many issues for us admins
and I for one have truly appreciated the assistance.

Once again I am reaching out but this time mostly for guidance or
suggestions.

 

We have two SX 20's installed for remote video connection for class
instruction.   That went along very well but over the past while we have not
used that video connection that much.   Staff and students used other
avenues.Now under the Covid19 situation in renewed need for video for
remote meetings of staff via video to other video endpoints, WebEx and
connection with Microsoft Teams if at all possible.So here is my request
for guidance and or suggestions  

 

We have CUCM 12.5

IM and Presence 12.5

Expressway Core and Edge X12.7

WebEx on prem 4.0

Unity 12.5

SX 20 currently registered to CUCM 12.5

DX 80  currently waiting for a