Re: [cisco-voip] Scripting best practice - xml read

Hi Fred, I'm a little confused by your question, as getting CSQ status should not be XML based. Let's start with: What platform are you using? E.g., UCCX? On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 10:29 AM f...@browardcommunications.com < f...@browardcommunications.com> wrote: > Greetings! > > Does anyone

Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM PLAR SIP 8851

It's been a while for me, but I think you need both: blank xlate and sip dial rule. Contrast this with a sccp phone, which only needs the xlate. Did you do both, or just one and then the other? On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 5:49 AM Abbas Wali wrote: > having issues with config. PLAR for a SIP 8851

Re: [cisco-voip] CCX Selected Resource User ID showing as Stars

Interesting! I just tried something like this in 12.5(1) and I get the same thing as you. I did achieve the desired outcome using the Get User Info step instead of casting the User object to a String, *cleanAgentID = Get User Info (selectedResource, Identifier)* On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 2:02 PM

Re: [cisco-voip] Create 8bit 8khz mono ulaw TTS prompts

https://www.ciscoprompts.com/?tts_voice=en-US-Wavenet-A_text=Ray%2C+you+are+a+scholar+and+a+saint%21# On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 7:05 PM Ray Maslanka wrote: > I created this little app some time ago partially as an experiment but > later ended up using it to power through a deployment at a required

Re: [cisco-voip] Unity SMTP Domain Change

Just my two cents on this: if "unitya" is the hostname name of the 11.5 system, and "unityb" is the hostname of the 12.5 system, I would not use "unitya" on 12.5. That's just a "typo" waiting to be corrected by someone, which then would break things. So, while you can change the domain to be

Re: [cisco-voip] Our benefactor -Jared Mauch

Get to know Jared: https://puck.nether.net/~jared/ On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 7:58 PM Lelio Fulgenzi wrote: > > For those of you that don’t know, Jared Mauch runs the list. > > There are stories of people who run their own fibre, but this time, it’s > true! ;) > > >

Re: [cisco-voip] [External] Re: List still active?

s > a total bummer. > > Hope you’re all staying safe. > > -Peter > peter at slow dot net > > On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 12:02 Anthony Holloway < > avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hunter, >> >> Yeah, I hear you on that one. I struggle wi

Re: [cisco-voip] [External] Re: List still active?

Technology > The University of Alabama in Huntsville > Network Engineering > > > On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 2:51 PM Anthony Holloway < > avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Chat services like Webex Teams and Discord have killed the list, IMO. >> >> Als

Re: [cisco-voip] List still active?

nks for related lists on these services? > > On Dec 25, 2020, at 14:51, Anthony Holloway < > avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote: > >  > Chat services like Webex Teams and Discord have killed the list, IMO. > > Also, Merry Christmas, all you VoIP Heads out there. &g

Re: [cisco-voip] call redirect to external number is sometimes failing

I agree with you, it does not seem to be a CSS/PT issue, since the call routes some of the time. Have you taken a look at the logs on CUCM yet? Did you know you can throw the logs into Cisco Solution Analyzer for a quick check? Have you checked the PSTN Voice

Re: [cisco-voip] End of Sale for Perpetual Calling Licenses and related SWSS

Oops! "tierd TAC support" was intended. On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 9:30 AM Charles Goldsmith wrote: > "come with *tired* TAC support?" > > I bet they are! > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 9:23 AM Anthony Holloway < > avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.c

Re: [cisco-voip] Deprecated phones in CUCM 14

This statement from the link is interesting to me: "...opportunity to move to newer phone models and clients at a pace that is reasonable." - 8800 series was released 8 years ago - 7940's have been end of support since 5 years ago On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 8:20 AM Lelio Fulgenzi wrote:

Re: [cisco-voip] End of Sale for Perpetual Calling Licenses and related SWSS

That's great info, thank you for sharing. Does this mean that "traditional" tac support is also changing? Because, doesn't Flex come with tired TAC support? Any info you can share there? Thanks! On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 8:48 AM Matthew Loraditch < mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com> wrote: > >

Re: [cisco-voip] presence failover issues

Under normal HA failover circumstances, the users should not lose the association they already have. Granted, new users will not be able to be assigned when HA is broken. So, this seems like a defect to me. Or, quite possibly a change in behavior from what I am used to, in which case, that's

Re: [cisco-voip] SIP Binding: Different Binds for Carrier vs Internal

> e: *mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com* > [image: Helion Technologies] <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/> > [image: Facebook] <https://facebook.com/heliontech> > [image: Twitter] <https://twitter.com/heliontech> > [image: LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/compa

Re: [cisco-voip] SIP Binding: Different Binds for Carrier vs Internal

First up, you don't need to bind your interfaces. You should bind your interfaces in two scenarios though: 1. You're trying to source your IP from a loopback address 2. You only have one interface Otherwise, let the router do it's routing and it will pick the correct interface to "bind" SIP

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

Office of Information Technology > The University of Alabama in Huntsville > Network Engineering > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 3:04 PM Erick Bergquist > wrote: > > > > It’s a great tool. > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 9:13 AM Anthony Holloway < >

Re: [cisco-voip] Remote Phone Control

Thanks for the kind words! On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 3:03 PM Erick Bergquist wrote: > It’s a great tool. > > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 9:13 AM Anthony Holloway < > avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> My add-on was approved to be in the add-on store: >&

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

gt; +1 256 824 5331 > > Office of Information Technology > The University of Alabama in Huntsville > Network Engineering > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 3:04 PM Erick Bergquist > wrote: > > > > It’s a great tool. > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 9:13

Re: [cisco-voip] Remote Phone Control

My add-on was approved to be in the add-on store: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/cisco-phone-controller/ On Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 11:38 AM Anthony Holloway < avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote: > I published a phone control firefox add-on that I've been sitting on for > over

Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice

unications.com> wrote: > >> Not blowing it up at all, I’ve enjoyed the back n forth!! >> >> I was going to try n be cool for a second and throw ICM out there. >> >> /FW >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Aug 19, 2020, at 2:42 PM, Anth

Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice

with very tiny touchscreen input keys. > Please excude my typtos. > > On Aug 19, 2020, at 12:51 PM, Anthony Holloway < > avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote: > >  > GTFO > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 10:25 AM NateCCIE wrote: > >> What about IP IVR? >>

Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice

GTFO On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 10:25 AM NateCCIE wrote: > What about IP IVR? > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:16 AM, Lelio Fulgenzi wrote: > >  > > +100 for Anthony!  > > > > > > > > *From:* Anthony Holloway > *Sent:* Wedn

Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice

Wait Lelio, CRA is older terminology than CRS, so it should go: +1 IPCC +2 CRS +3 CRA Right? On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:53 AM Lelio Fulgenzi wrote: > > Not much more to add here, except +1 for calling in IPCC. :) you’d have > gotten +2 if you called it CRA. ;) > > But, seriously, you have to

Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice

Fred, There's no best practice for this question/scenario. You have to do what is best for the given set of parameters the business gives you to design a solution. On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:53 AM Lelio Fulgenzi wrote: > > Not much more to add here, except +1 for calling in IPCC. :) you’d have

Re: [cisco-voip] 12.5 SU3 is Out - Important change (IMO)

And the 911 Route Pattern annoyer...err.. I mean reminder. I have yet to experience it, but it reads like you simply check a box to acknowledge that you know what you are doing, just in case your 911 pattern is a DN for CER or an XLATE to avoid secondary dial-tone issues. On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at

Re: [cisco-voip] Unity xfer Getting 603 from carrier

selects the option, and the call actually gets routed, any thoughts on what > would cause this delay? > Thank you. > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 30, 2020, at 4:41 PM, Anthony Holloway < > avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Midcall signaling

Re: [cisco-voip] Jabber via MRA failover from one CUCM node to another

Do you have access to this document? It's limited to who can view it. https://salesconnect.cisco.com/#/content-detail/8da1f8a8-1f29-4e56-bc09-eb43175a3bba On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 7:20 PM Anthony Holloway < avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote: > " This is a

Re: [cisco-voip] Jabber via MRA failover from one CUCM node to another

" This is a surprise to me that this fundamental feature is still not supported after many years." Are you new to working with Cisco solutions? On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 12:02 AM Gerence Guan wrote: > Hi All, > > I found this old post from Cisco community. > >

Re: [cisco-voip] Unity xfer Getting 603 from carrier

> Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 30, 2020, at 3:46 PM, Anthony Holloway < > avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If your assessment is correct about the calling number, the carrier will > see the original or outside caller's phone number in the From field and &

Re: [cisco-voip] Unity xfer Getting 603 from carrier

If your assessment is correct about the calling number, the carrier will see the original or outside caller's phone number in the From field and reject your call. I see this being solved most of the time with a SIP Profile on the outgoing dial-peer, which adds either a Diversion header or a

Re: [cisco-voip] Is CME media flow through by default?

I agree with you Brian, so then, why do so many people type the command address-hiding in to their CUBE configuration? It just baffles me. On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 1:36 PM Brian Meade wrote: > Yea, CUBE is really just any config in which it's IP to IP on both sides > of the router. CME with a

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

> > > *Matthew Loraditch**​* > > *Sr. Network Engineer* > > p: *443.541.1518* <443.541.1518> > > w: *www.heliontechnologies.com* <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/> > > | > > e: *mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com* > > [image: Helion Technol

Re: [cisco-voip] H.323 Gateway call forward?

I would think so James. Do you not have the ability to do it in CUCM then? Why not? What's the PSTN connectivity like? POTS? If it's POTS then H323 doesn't even come into play; it's pots-to-pots. Does your provider allow unscreened ANI? Can you apply translation rules on the incoming call

Re: [cisco-voip] OAuth for Unity Connection/Office 365

Looks like CUCM 11.5 SU8 addresses oauth with o365. Did you see that? On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 3:02 PM Anthony Holloway < avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote: > Matthew, What did you end up learning on this effort? > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 10:10 AM Matthew Loradi

Re: [cisco-voip] digitized voice quality

Who is hearing the poor audio, the jabber user? the person the jabber user is speaking to? is this jabber to jabber only? is this over wlan or lan? One idea for why audio sucks but audio+video doesn't is that your priority queue is dropping packets and when video is added both audio and video

Re: [cisco-voip] Fax line issue

if your CUBE is SIP on both sides, then "debug ccsip message" and "debug ccsip error" are the two I would start with. Feel free to post the output here for us to review. Also, is your FoIP designed for fax relay and if so, is it T.38 end to end? On Sat, Jul 11, 2020, 4:44 AM James Dust wrote:

Re: [cisco-voip] [EXTERNAL] Re: UCCX 11.6 Real Time Port Usage

}, >>> "svoicemail": { >>> "name": "svoicemail", >>> "value": "\"2286856\"", >>> "type": "java.lang.String" >>> } >>> }, >

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX 11.6 Real Time Port Usage

eply back to the list. > > Sent from an iPhone mobile device with very tiny touchscreen input keys. > Please excude my typtos. > > On Jul 10, 2020, at 10:30 AM, Anthony Holloway < > avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote: > >  > Bill, just to be clear, do either of the

Re: [cisco-voip] [EXTERNAL] Re: UCCX 11.6 Real Time Port Usage

contact record, but it consumes two ports. On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 12:30 PM UC Penguin wrote: > What does Contacts/Contact Summary show? > > Doc says call, email, http. Does it have realtime data? > > On Jul 10, 2020, at 12:08, Anthony Holloway < > avholloway+cisco-

Re: [cisco-voip] [EXTERNAL] Re: UCCX 11.6 Real Time Port Usage

> Sorry, been tied us this morning. Just looking for real time usage data of > the 300 UCCX Ports we are licensed for. Thanks! > > > > > > *From:* Tanner Ezell > *Sent:* Friday, July 10, 2020 9:41 AM > *To:* Charles Goldsmith > *Cc:* Anthony Holloway ; JASON BURWELL <

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX 11.6 Real Time Port Usage

Bill, just to be clear, do either of the CUCM APIs show the active call and idle status of CTI ports? Not just registration. On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 10:05 AM Bill Talley wrote: >  > Do you need to gather that data directly from CCX? It might be easier to > pull it from CCM using the PerfMon

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX 11.6 Real Time Port Usage

LOL, I over-thought the process and forgot to look at the most simple solution. Thanks Charles. On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 10:13 PM Charles Goldsmith wrote: > You can simply put Tanner in the To: field, old school I know, but it > still works :) > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 4:46 PM Anth

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX 11.6 Real Time Port Usage

That's nothing I've ever heard of. I'd imagine you could use the CTI API , but not the Admin API. This isn't a REST based API though, and it is relatively harder to implement and work with though. My man Tanner at

Re: [cisco-voip] Automated SIP Testing

I don't know of a tool, but if you want to board the devops train (choo choo) I would recommend looking at Twilio for programmable voice, and using it to make your phone calls, but you orchestrate it from anywhere. You'll get back status codes and the like, if that's all you're after, but you

Re: [cisco-voip] Expressway Cluster failover for MRA

Brian, This wouldn't support failover in all scenarios though, correct? E.g., CUCM sub to sub failover. Does anyone have a nice table of failover scenarios covered and not covered by expressway clustering versus not? On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 9:29 AM Brian Meade wrote: > I would not use

Re: [cisco-voip] Creating Jabber for non-existent phones

You tease! Just kidding, thanks for sharing this. Did you just get this from the logs then? Or some other dark magic? On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 11:02 PM Brian Meade wrote: > Lelio, > > I'm actually starting to work on creating some Python scripts to allow > bulk using the Quick User/Phone Add

Re: [cisco-voip] Creating Jabber for non-existent phones

*443.541.1518* <443.541.1518> > w: *www.heliontechnologies.com* <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/> | > e: *mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com* > > > <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/> > > > <https://facebook.com/heliontech> > > > <

Re: [cisco-voip] Creating Jabber for non-existent phones

Forgive my ignorance here, since I do not do day 2 ops work often (thus quick add's set backs are not top of mind), I mostly focus on new deployments, which typically involve BAT, so what is the trouble/uniqueness in Jabber CSF devices versus a physical phone? Also, how come Option A doesn't

Re: [cisco-voip] CUC Speech Connect Ports

be “gwelp” no matter what. > > We ended up going with Nuance. Which has announced EOS at end of next year > I believe. > > We might revisit connection. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jun 22, 2020, at 12:24 PM, Anthony Holloway < > avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote: >

[cisco-voip] CUC Speech Connect Ports

I'd like to hear your personal stories. Do you configure these? ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] Wildcard certificates

I've got some thoughts, though, I've never done this before, so it's just guessing. You don't need *.domain.com in your SAN. Just generate your CSR on CUCM as if you were not using wildcard certificates. Then when you dupe your wildcard on digitcert's site, manually add the exact same SANs in

Re: [cisco-voip] Consolidating access to Cisco CUCM APIs via Service Mesh

ling difference sources. > > > > > > > > > > Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for > Windows 10 > > > > *From: *Anthony Holloway > *Sent: *Tuesday, June 16, 2020 3:02 PM > *To: *Pete Brown > *Cc: *cisco-vo

Re: [cisco-voip] CUBE Config Dial Peers

, and I really appreciate a base config that works for everything >> and can be expanded upon. More and more when I keep things consistent >> between deployments, I am quicker at figuring out what’s broken and can fix >> it quickly, and customers are amazed that I remembered their system

Re: [cisco-voip] Consolidating access to Cisco CUCM APIs via Service Mesh

You lost me there, as I'm too ignorant to understand what an API mesh is, but this sounds very familiar to what UnifiedFX is/was doing with AutomationFX, is it not? Or am I again showing my ignorance? On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 12:32 PM Pete Brown wrote: > TLDR – Developing a hybrid service/data

Re: [cisco-voip] CUBE Config Dial Peers

ach gateway, and I wanted CUCM to re-route to > the other gateway same carrier before CUBE used a less preferred route > because it was local. So when there is multiple carriers I usually will > prefix 1#* or 2#* on up for each carrier. > > > > Anyway, that’s my 2 cents. &

Re: [cisco-voip] CUBE Config Dial Peers

oups to > reduce outbound peers. > Based on the configs from Brian and Anthony, you wouldn’t need > e164-pattern-maps in those environments. Curious what direction others > have taken to simplify dial-peers with UCCE in play. > > Loren > > On Jun 16, 2020, at 10:55 AM, Anthony Ho

Re: [cisco-voip] CUBE Config Dial Peers

feel like I'm always on > some random customer's box so not sure I'd remember to always put them in > first but definitely nice to have when you make the full CUBE config. > > Looks like all you're missing is your fax config! I can fax that over to > you! :) > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2

Re: [cisco-voip] [EXTERNAL] Re: CUBE Config Dial Peers

manipulation on the CUBE > which I questioned and part of what led me to ask here. > > > > Jason > > > > > > *From:* Anthony Holloway > *Sent:* Friday, June 12, 2020 8:53 PM > *To:* Brian Meade > *Cc:* JASON BURWELL ; > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net > *

Re: [cisco-voip] CUBE Config Dial Peers

t being used > for call routing, I just use like ABC123 as the pattern to ensure it never > can be used, but also, mildly clear it's not supposed to be used > I like that idea and referenced it in 8 above. > > > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 6:29 PM Anthony Holloway < > avholl

Re: [cisco-voip] CUBE Config Dial Peers

Brian, Nice and clean, I like it! Very similar to what I do. I'd like to comment/question yours a bit. 1. While I like that you can give a uri profile a name like ISP, I much prefer to stick with numbers, since for most things, you must use numbers when naming, so this keeps it consistent. 2.

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

/twitter.com/heliontech> > [image: LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies> > > *From:* Anthony Holloway > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 12, 2020 1:22 PM > *To:* Matthew Loraditch > *Cc:* Pawlowski, Adam ; Cisco VoIP Group < > cisco-voip@puck.net

Re: [cisco-voip] SX80 Camera Tracking and Face Masks

My mind was wandering, but I arrived there all on my own. Thanks for confirming it wasn't just all in my head. On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 11:10 PM Lelio Fulgenzi wrote: > > Sorry. I forgot to add something. If it wasn’t obvious, the camera diag > identified our crotches as faces. Green squares and

Re: [cisco-voip] 7900 Factory Reset w/out connecting to the network

> > for what a 7970 is worth as trade in or resell, it's too much work, a > hammer works better/faster :) > > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 4:12 PM Anthony Holloway < > avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Adam, I've always been under the impression that ei

Re: [cisco-voip] 7900 Factory Reset w/out connecting to the network

Adam, I've always been under the impression that either of these options require DHCP Option 150 with a working TFTP and files to work properly. Are you saying they don't? I've never tested it though. On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 3:26 PM Pawlowski, Adam wrote: > Sean, > > > > The two codes for it,

Re: [cisco-voip] Third Party CDR Analysis

masoftware.com/covid19-response-resources/> > [image: Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/DonomaSoftware> > [image: Twitter] <https://twitter.com/donomasoftware> > [image: LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/donoma-software> > > *From: *cisco-voip on beh

Re: [cisco-voip] Cisco Webex Serviceability Connector

Never heard of it. Looks like we're all learning something new from the list today. Thanks for sharing. On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 7:54 PM Tim Smith wrote: > Hi guys, > > Crossposting here possibly for some of you. > This tool is truly awesome. IMHO - If we all get on board, this will >

Re: [cisco-voip] vCUBE Experiences

; could use for Transcoders if required. > > Cheers, > > Tim. > > > > > > -- > *From:* cisco-voip on behalf of > Anthony Holloway > *Sent:* Thursday, 4 June 2020 7:06 AM > *To:* Cisco VoIP Group > *Subject:* [cisco-voip] vCUBE Experiences > > >

Re: [cisco-voip] vCUBE Experiences

t; On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 4:30 PM Anthony Holloway < > avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Anyone have some vCUBEs out in production for a while, and willing to >> share their feelings and/or experiences with it? >> >> Anything from deployment, to restr

Re: [cisco-voip] Third Party CDR Analysis

My personal experience is that it gets talked about a lot, but then never purchased. For mostly cost reasons, but I think it's also the fact that it's one more vendor, one more contract, one more vm, one more management touch point, etc., and is the data you'll get really that useful, to warrant

[cisco-voip] vCUBE Experiences

Anyone have some vCUBEs out in production for a while, and willing to share their feelings and/or experiences with it? Anything from deployment, to restrictions, to licensing, to upgrade processes, lessons learned, etc? I think the obvious thing is the lack of DSP/PVDM since this is a virtual

Re: [cisco-voip] Resolving Sectigo root expiration affecting MRA

t; > > *From:* cisco-voip *On Behalf Of *Derek > Andrew > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 3, 2020 10:20 AM > *To:* Anthony Holloway > *Cc:* voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) < > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net> > *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Resolving Sectigo roo

Re: [cisco-voip] [External] Re: Resolving Sectigo root expiration affecting MRA

I never know what one of my colleagues may have configured that relies > on the TLS verify working. :) > > -- > Hunter Fuller (they) > Router Jockey > VBH Annex B-5 > +1 256 824 5331 > > Office of Information Technology > The University of Alabama in Huntsville >

Re: [cisco-voip] Resolving Sectigo root expiration affecting MRA

at 8:28 AM Anthony Holloway < avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hunter, > > I might be exposing a gap in my knowledge here, but why did you need these > certs on CUCM? > > Cisco has now published a troubleshooting guide for this issue, and the > article does not

Re: [cisco-voip] Resolving Sectigo root expiration affecting MRA

o have expired. > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 7:34 AM Anthony Holloway < > avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of >> Saskatchewan. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize >&g

Re: [cisco-voip] Resolving Sectigo root expiration affecting MRA

Hunter, I might be exposing a gap in my knowledge here, but why did you need these certs on CUCM? Cisco has now published a troubleshooting guide for this issue, and the article does not mention modifying CUCM cert store.

Re: [cisco-voip] call forward is not working in this scenario

There are two call forwarding settings there today (no answer and busy). Was it something more than that? It would be great if you had more details about it. My google searching has turned up nothing so far. On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 11:35 AM Norton, Mike wrote: > I haven’t been into CUCM in

Re: [cisco-voip] call forward is not working in this scenario

ant to > attend the calls, hence they requested to forward the calls to their mobile > phones > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 9:14 PM Anthony Holloway < > avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Nope. The forward no coverage is for the following scenario only: >> >>

Re: [cisco-voip] call forward is not working in this scenario

om:* cisco-voip *On Behalf Of *Anthony > Holloway > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 2, 2020 10:52 AM > *To:* Arun Kumar > *Cc:* Cisco VoIP Group > *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] call forward is not working in this scenario > > > > *CAUTION:* This email originated from outside of

Re: [cisco-voip] call forward is not working in this scenario

Call forwarding is ignored for members of hunt groups. If you actually configure SNR (like with RDP/RD) then that does work. In fact, you don't even need a Cisco phone in the membership of the LG to ring a cell phone. Once you build the DN on the RDP you can add the DN to the LG. On Tue, Jun

Re: [cisco-voip] Migration from CUCM/UCXN/UCCX 8.5 to 12.5

ologies.com/> > [image: Facebook] <https://facebook.com/heliontech> > [image: Twitter] <https://twitter.com/heliontech> > [image: LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies> > > *From:* Anthony Holloway > *Sent:* Thursday, May 28, 2020 3:42 P

Re: [cisco-voip] Migration from CUCM/UCXN/UCCX 8.5 to 12.5

: > That bothers me too. I think the only option where that makes sense is for > RGs and RLs because they cannot share the same name. > > > > > > *From:* cisco-voip *On Behalf Of *Anthony > Holloway > *Sent:* Thursday, May 28, 2020 3:42 PM > *To:* Matt

Re: [cisco-voip] Migration from CUCM/UCXN/UCCX 8.5 to 12.5

ion Technologies] <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/> > [image: Facebook] <https://facebook.com/heliontech> > [image: Twitter] <https://twitter.com/heliontech> > [image: LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies> > > *From:* Pawlowski, Adam &

Re: [cisco-voip] Migration from CUCM/UCXN/UCCX 8.5 to 12.5

es.com* > [image: Helion Technologies] <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/> > [image: Facebook] <https://facebook.com/heliontech> > [image: Twitter] <https://twitter.com/heliontech> > [image: LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies> > > *From:* Anth

Re: [cisco-voip] [External] Re: Migration from CUCM/UCXN/UCCX 8.5 to 12.5

4. Do we click “Run on all Nodes” for route lists and trunks or not? >>5. MGCP, SIP, or H323 (if using PRIs)? >>6. Can UCCX have upper-case hostnames or not? >> >> >> >> The debates would take us so long, version 14.0 would be out, and then >> w

Re: [cisco-voip] Migration from CUCM/UCXN/UCCX 8.5 to 12.5

I know? I was young and naïve.  > > > > Of course, with CCM v2 or v3, anything was possible.  > > > > *From:* cisco-voip *On Behalf Of *Lelio > Fulgenzi > *Sent:* Thursday, May 28, 2020 2:30 PM > *To:* Anthony Holloway ; Kent Roberts < > k...@fredf.org> > *Cc:* cisco-

Re: [cisco-voip] Migration from CUCM/UCXN/UCCX 8.5 to 12.5

Another thing, CUCM 12.5 specific, Cisco wants all of us to run through the Collaboration Sizing Tool every time we upgrade to 12.5 now. See slide 13 https://www.ciscolive.com/c/dam/r/ciscolive/us/docs/2019/pdf/BRKUCC-2011.pdf On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 1:08 PM Anthony Holloway < avholloway+cisc

Re: [cisco-voip] Migration from CUCM/UCXN/UCCX 8.5 to 12.5

Keep in mind that PCD network migrations, while awesome for CUCM, do not work for other products. Typically with a project like this, you'll likely have a different approach for each app, and not a one size fits all solution. With the app upgrades, you will also have to change OVA sizes (or want

Re: [cisco-voip] Migration from CUCM/UCXN/UCCX 8.5 to 12.5

Or turn it into the first cisco-voip community project, and we all jump in and help? I call translation patterns! On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:57 PM Kent Roberts wrote: > > Might be less work to just start over….. > > > On May 28, 2020, at 10:25 AM, Matthew Loraditch < >

Re: [cisco-voip] Jabber Bulk Provisioning and CSCur73925

Wow! I had no idea. Thanks for sharing. I'm not sure I would have hit this myself for two reasons: 1) I typically don't see a lot of mobile device adoption in my customer base 2) I typically don't see people stressing the limits of their CUCM device limits. I deal with a lot of BE6K size

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX upgrade versions

If 12.0 is considered, I'd just go 12.5 for long life release reasons, over 12.0, plus you can modernize your licensing to smart. You get a few other fancy features too, but you may not have a business need for them at this time. If you do go WFO (which is one of several options - Imagicle being

Re: [cisco-voip] Field Notice: FN - 70555 - Legacy VoIP Mode and iOS 13 Apple Push Notification Service Changes That Affect Cisco Jabber, Cisco Webex Teams, Cisco Unified Communications Manager and IM

What's funny is, this has been going on for like 4 years now. But just like we, as kids, always waited until the last day to complete our science fair projects, we wait on securing LDAP, moving to O365's oauth, and enabling APNs. On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 9:49 AM Lelio Fulgenzi wrote: > > Like

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

p://www.heliontechnologies.com/> | > e: *mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com* > [image: Helion Technologies] <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/> > [image: Facebook] <https://facebook.com/heliontech> > [image: Twitter] <https://twitter.com/heliontech> > [image: LinkedIn] <http

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

ww.heliontechnologies.com/> > [image: Facebook] <https://facebook.com/heliontech> > [image: Twitter] <https://twitter.com/heliontech> > [image: LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies> > > *From:* cisco-voip *On Behalf Of *Anthony > Holloway &g

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

://twitter.com/heliontech> > [image: LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies> > -- > *From:* Anthony Holloway > *Sent:* Monday, May 11, 2020 7:03:47 PM > *To:* Matthew Loraditch > *Cc:* Pawlowski, Adam ; Cisco VoIP Group <

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

gt; Matthew Loraditch​ > Sr. Network Engineer > p: *443.541.1518* <443.541.1518> > w: *www.heliontechnologies.com* <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/> | > e: *mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com* > [image: Helion Technologies] <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/> > [image: F

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

based on feature utilization and concurrency. > > > > > > > > *From:* cisco-voip *On Behalf Of *Brian > Meade > *Sent:* Monday, May 11, 2020 5:07 PM > *To:* Anthony Holloway > *Cc:* Cisco VoIP Group > *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

-CC that it always just gives you Premium > licensing on the CCX side. Had this cause an issue with a customer that > was staying on Enhanced for the extra CTI ports for many years. > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:23 PM Anthony Holloway < > avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote

Re: [cisco-voip] DRS Message Restore & DRS File Decrypter Updated

(packaging, logging, error handing, etc). > > I’m just happy that it’s now a “blessed” utility instead of something > that’s frowned on in the Community forums. > > Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for > Windows 10 > > *From: *Anthony Hollo

[cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

All, Anyone already deal with this themselves? I am reading/being told something I cannot swallow as the truth, because it seems so ridiculous. I am being told that you need a Premium license to even login as a Supervisor at all. Like, not for extra functionality (silent monitoring), but just

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >