Re: [cisco-voip] Remote Phone Control -- Opinions

[Terry Oakley]

I add to the UnifiedFX solution for remote phone control.  We still are a 
strong Singlewire shop with their InformaCast product for notification, both 
informational and emergency.  With the drop in support of the RemotePhone 
software it was very nice to find the UnifiedFX solution.   Very happy with the 
results and they just keep adding to the offering so that even makes it better.

From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Scott 
Voll
Sent: October 29, 2015 3:51 PM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-voip] Remote Phone Control -- Opinions

So what vendor do you use for Remote phone control?

Do you like them?

Pro's and Con's?

We have used SingleWire for the last 5 or 6 years, but they have made their's 
free and not continuing support for new Models.

We are moving from 7961's to 88xx series.  I have a Demo of Uplinx.  It seems 
very feature rich, but the GUI could use a little updating (seems a little 
xp'ish).

Before I go and spend any money, I want to go with the best.

TIA

Scott

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

Re: [cisco-voip] Remote Phone Control -- Opinions

[Tom Sparks]

I recently did some research into these tools and here are my pros and cons
for whoever is insterested.

*UnifiedFX, Singlewire*
 Pros: nice, functional, affordable
 Cons: thick client, point tool so not great for making available to a team
of users

*Variphy*
 Pros: decent, server-based, does other things like configuration reporting
 Cons: newest phones didn't work that well, sluggish screen load

*Riverbed UCExpert* (used to be called Clarus)
 Pros: good performance, server-based, does similar things to Variphy but
also testing and other vendor support besides Cisco (that was important for
my particular need)
 Cons: more expensive


At this point, I haven't decided but am leaning towards Riverbed because 1)
it supports other vendors 2)  I like the product and 3) we already have
some other Riverbed equipment (sniffers and steelheads).



Tom Sparks
Taos Consulting
Sr. Voice | Video Engineer
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] Remote Phone Control -- Opinions

[Scott Voll]

Nice list.  Thanks for the feed back.

Scott


On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Tom Sparks 
wrote:

> I recently did some research into these tools and here are my pros and
> cons for whoever is insterested.
>
> *UnifiedFX, Singlewire*
>  Pros: nice, functional, affordable
>  Cons: thick client, point tool so not great for making available to a
> team of users
>
> *Variphy*
>  Pros: decent, server-based, does other things like configuration reporting
>  Cons: newest phones didn't work that well, sluggish screen load
>
> *Riverbed UCExpert* (used to be called Clarus)
>  Pros: good performance, server-based, does similar things to Variphy but
> also testing and other vendor support besides Cisco (that was important for
> my particular need)
>  Cons: more expensive
>
>
> At this point, I haven't decided but am leaning towards Riverbed because
> 1) it supports other vendors 2)  I like the product and 3) we already have
> some other Riverbed equipment (sniffers and steelheads).
>
>
>
> Tom Sparks
> Taos Consulting
> Sr. Voice | Video Engineer
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Remote Phone Control -- Opinions

[Dan Schmitt]

voll.v...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 12:09 PM
> To: Barnett, Nick
> Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] I need some feedback on the use of alternate 
> enterprise number mask
> 
> could you just use a translation pattern.  9130XXX translates to 
> 130xxx.
> 
> Scott
> 
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Barnett, Nick 
> <nick.barn...@countryfinancial.com<mailto:nick.barn...@countryfinancial.com>> 
> wrote:
> Here?s the scenario. Our HQ has been on CUCM for several years, but our field 
> offices have their own pots KSU solutions. We are deploying IPT to the field 
> offices as we speak. The field offices are consistently setting speed dials 
> to call back to other on net DNs, but prefixing a 9. This causes the call to 
> trombone and eats up call path and resources. No amount of training or 
> bulletins to the field seems to work. They have been dialing 9 to reach HQ 
> for decades.
> 
> I?m aware that we should try and go full e164, but we have issues with 
> non-did numbers and it is a fairly complex dialplan. I?ll get there, I just 
> can?t do it right now.
> 
> My idea is to use the alternate enterprise number mask on the DNs. We use 11 
> digit DNs, so the Alt number mask would like 9XXX. This gives a 
> derived DN of 913095551234, which keeps the calls on net. Cool, mission 
> accomplished? I think.
> 
> Does this method cause any call processing issues? I?m slightly worried that 
> it could raise processor usage? but I?m mostly just worried about it because 
> it is ?new? to me.
> 
> Has anyone used the alt Ent number mask for this work around?
> 
> Thanks,
> Nick
> 
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__puck.nether.net_mailman_listinfo_cisco-2Dvoip=BQMFaQ=M-KQspD_LQogCbR-BWCHOaeDEPOhF8vWqHZTaiwxT3c=T9uVLZucbHG2NKKKzOrp-o5cpdReHj02PkJJsCVkgfwcv7S0R5lDeFJg2VRbiNih=paRhBsPV9F8cx4V4Suj3w3w0oN2AL6Vk-F2aL89dfXU=v-bYzIVjb_NyIJNhPSXZZCGYMsLM0Q2Bzdh64sFwJFE=>
> 
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> 
> ------ next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20151029/94472437/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 19:36:18 +
> From: "Jeremy Rogers (AM)" <jeremy.rog...@dimensiondata.com>
> To: "cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" <cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
> Subject: [cisco-voip] CME 9.1 shared line
> Message-ID:
>   <12653a76e0c67c4da0c8ce32c504c4ec1f7c7...@usispsvexdb03.na.didata.local>
>   
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
> 
> I have a CME with several 9971 phones that have a shared line.  Internally 
> they use a 3 digit extension.  Externally the calls hit an inbound 
> translation to go from a 10 digit DID to the 3 digit extension.  The issue is 
> as follows:
> 
> If I call from a cell phone to the DID, the call only rings on the SIP phone 
> that has that DN as line 1.
> If I call internally to the 3 digit DN, it rings on all three phones.
> 
> Is this normal behavior?  I've tried searching but can't find any answers.
> 
> Jeremy Rogers CCNA
> Advanced Technical consultant
> Advanced Solutions, Professional Services
> Dimension Data
> Office:  +1.732.452.5238
> Mobile:  +1.908.229.3474
> e-fax:  +1.732.352.7891
> www.dimensiondata.com<http://www.dimensiondata.com/>
> 
> 
> 
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20151029/b5a4c38f/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 14:51:25 -0700
> From: Scott Voll <svoll.v...@gmail.com>
> To: "cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" <cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
> Subject: [cisco-voip] Remote Phone Control -- Opinions
> Message-ID:
>   <CAHgd+39E=nair51myd0k5n4uuxgw6_wuyqaxqh9tnxnqljt...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> So what vendor do you use for Remote phone control?
> 
> Do you like them?
> 
> Pro's and Con's?
> 
> We have used SingleWire for the last 5 or 6 years, but they have made
&

[cisco-voip] Remote Phone Control -- Opinions

[Scott Voll]

So what vendor do you use for Remote phone control?

Do you like them?

Pro's and Con's?

We have used SingleWire for the last 5 or 6 years, but they have made
their's free and not continuing support for new Models.

We are moving from 7961's to 88xx series.  I have a Demo of Uplinx.  It
seems very feature rich, but the GUI could use a little updating (seems a
little xp'ish).

Before I go and spend any money, I want to go with the best.

TIA

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

Re: [cisco-voip] Remote Phone Control -- Opinions

[Walenta, Philip]

I’ve been using Unified FX for quite some time now.  The ability to see/manage 
groups of phones makes it a dream for me (I manage several labs, so I have a 
different use case).

It makes certain tasks very easy (like putting wallpapers on phones).  You can 
also use it to monitor audio and send audio (Play:AreYouThere.raw) etc.

The interface is a little sparse, but very functional.

From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Scott 
Voll
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 4:51 PM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-voip] Remote Phone Control -- Opinions

So what vendor do you use for Remote phone control?

Do you like them?

Pro's and Con's?

We have used SingleWire for the last 5 or 6 years, but they have made their's 
free and not continuing support for new Models.

We are moving from 7961's to 88xx series.  I have a Demo of Uplinx.  It seems 
very feature rich, but the GUI could use a little updating (seems a little 
xp'ish).

Before I go and spend any money, I want to go with the best.

TIA

Scott

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

Re: [cisco-voip] Remote Phone Control -- Opinions

[Stephen Welsh]

Okay, I can’t resit this one ;)

I’m sure opinions will vary based on personal taste etc., but one key point, 
only PhoneView (http://www.unifiedfx.com) is Cisco Compatible (tested with 
10.5, IVT testing for 11.0 will be complete shortly too) and used by Cisco 
themselves including the following:

Cisco ACE team (internal Cisco IT that supports alpha clusters etc.)
CCIE Collaboration Proctors to help remotely mark your pod configuration
Cisco Devnet sandbox
Cisco TAC globally

I’m not claiming our software is flawless, but it is being used to manage 
Millions of IP Phones, so we do have a few happy customers ;)

Kind Regards

Stephen Welsh
CTO
UnifiedFX

On 29 Oct 2015, at 21:51, Scott Voll 
> wrote:

So what vendor do you use for Remote phone control?

Do you like them?

Pro's and Con's?

We have used SingleWire for the last 5 or 6 years, but they have made their's 
free and not continuing support for new Models.

We are moving from 7961's to 88xx series.  I have a Demo of Uplinx.  It seems 
very feature rich, but the GUI could use a little updating (seems a little 
xp'ish).

Before I go and spend any money, I want to go with the best.

TIA

Scott

___
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] Remote Phone Control -- Opinions

[Charles Goldsmith]

Variphy (variphy.com), and it comes with a lot of other very handy tools.

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Scott Voll  wrote:

> So what vendor do you use for Remote phone control?
>
> Do you like them?
>
> Pro's and Con's?
>
> We have used SingleWire for the last 5 or 6 years, but they have made
> their's free and not continuing support for new Models.
>
> We are moving from 7961's to 88xx series.  I have a Demo of Uplinx.  It
> seems very feature rich, but the GUI could use a little updating (seems a
> little xp'ish).
>
> Before I go and spend any money, I want to go with the best.
>
> TIA
>
> Scott
>
>
> ___
> 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] Remote Phone Control -- Opinions

[Nick Britt]

+1 plus for unified fx saved my bacon numerous times ;-)

On Friday, 30 October 2015, Charles Goldsmith  wrote:

> Variphy (variphy.com), and it comes with a lot of other very handy tools.
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Scott Voll  > wrote:
>
>> So what vendor do you use for Remote phone control?
>>
>> Do you like them?
>>
>> Pro's and Con's?
>>
>> We have used SingleWire for the last 5 or 6 years, but they have made
>> their's free and not continuing support for new Models.
>>
>> We are moving from 7961's to 88xx series.  I have a Demo of Uplinx.  It
>> seems very feature rich, but the GUI could use a little updating (seems a
>> little xp'ish).
>>
>> Before I go and spend any money, I want to go with the best.
>>
>> TIA
>>
>> Scott
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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