I have had a few requests from folks for help with a front-end GUI application
for the external PostgreSQL database that can be used with the Cisco Presence
and IM server.
Using something like PgAdmin is a great tool to use in an administrative
function but not very user friendly for the non
Hey Guys,
We've been running Cisco UC integration version 8.X (CUCILYNC 8.6) for a
while now and it works great with MS Office Communicator R2 and Office 2010,
including the click to call add-in. Our MS folks are looking to migrate
clients to MS Office 2013, but still use MOC R2. I can't
Folks:
Hoping to get some insight on SDL process creation for H245...
Scenario is three CUCM clusters communicating over ICTs. Call is routed from
Cluster-1 to Cluster-2... then Cluster-2 to Cluster-3. Cluster-3 sends the H245
address port info via H225 ALERTING to Cluster-2, which then sends
Short answer without confirming in the lab is yes, when I send you my H245
address I expect you to start a TCP connection to me on that port so we can
start H245.
-Ryan
On Dec 1, 2014, at 5:12 PM, Daniel Pagan
dpa...@fidelus.commailto:dpa...@fidelus.com wrote:
Folks:
Hoping to get some
We are seeing an odd error on a migration from a Nortel setup over to an
h323 setup.
the error message after entering PRI 2 is
*crsvr1(config-controller)#pri-group timeslots 1-24 nfas_ backup nfas_int 1
nfas_group 1*
*%The Primary-group is already defined*
*%The first definition of the
No, it's not, we cleared the pri-group's on both controllers by shutting
down both voice-port and serial interfaces, removed the pri-group's, then
added in correct config for NFAS.
Going to open a TAC case in a bit on it.
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Brian Meade bmead...@vt.edu wrote:
Is
Is the pri-group already configured on that controller? If so, you'll need
to shut down the voice-port, the serial interface, and then do no
pri-group on the controller before re-defining the pri-group configuration.
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Charles Goldsmith wo...@justfamily.org
wrote:
Thanks Ryan - that's what I was hoping to hear. I'll try to set this up in a
lab to confirm with some simple ACLs.
- Dan
From: Ryan Ratliff (rratliff) [mailto:rratl...@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 5:33 PM
To: Daniel Pagan
Cc: cisco-voip voyp list
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip]
Expressway is the first thought, then CUBE Lineside proxy would be where to go
for 3rd party.
https://ciscocollab.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/cube-sip-lineside-phone-vpn-configuration/
From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Brian
Meade
Sent: Monday,
Correct. The new cicilync is more like jabber. If you go to the o365 cloud
it pretty much breaks everything. Good luck
Scott
On Monday, December 1, 2014, george.hend...@l-3com.com wrote:
Hey Guys,
We’ve been running Cisco UC integration version 8.X (CUCILYNC 8.6) for a
while now and
Hey Brian – hope you’re doing well. This is a difficult issue to reproduce so a
pcap would be tricky to obtain.
I’ll try and recreate the issue in a lab and see what results I get from an SDL
process creation standpoint.
Thanks!
- Dan
From: bmead...@gmail.com [mailto:bmead...@gmail.com] On
What OS/Browser versions? If IE have you tried Compatibility mode?
http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/Unified_CCE_Software_Compatibility_Matrix_for_10.5%28x%29#Unified_CCE_Release_10.5..281.29_Supported_Browsers
From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
TAC opened 3 bugs on my behalf related to CUBE line-side SIP proxy. Not
including the documentation bugs that were opened. CUBE in that fashion has a
few specific use cases and in my simple use case of replacing ASA phone-proxy
it didn't hold up. Expressway is your go to solution for Jabber
I would second this opinion. I've done a lot of work with CUBE and it does not
handle phone proxy well at all (or much when it comes to endpoint auth
situations). VCS is your best best.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 1, 2014, at 8:55 PM, Josh Warcop
j...@warcop.commailto:j...@warcop.com wrote:
14 matches
Mail list logo
