Re: [cisco-voip] Multi-Year SmartNet Purchasing Woes
When CCW is used , they get a DART, the DART doesn’t indicate the term properly and at least with whom I deal with, their quote generates defaults of 1 year, you have to tell them that your Smartnet is more than 12 months and give them the deal ID to reference so they can generate a proper price. Matthew G. Loraditch – CCNP-Voice, CCNA-RS, CCDA Network Engineer Direct Voice: 443.541.1518 Facebookhttps://www.facebook.com/heliontech?ref=hl | Twitterhttps://twitter.com/HelionTech | LinkedInhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies?trk=top_nav_home | G+https://plus.google.com/+Heliontechnologies/posts From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Anthony Holloway Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 9:17 PM To: Cisco VoIP Group; Mike Olivere Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Multi-Year SmartNet Purchasing Woes Thanks for your insight on this. Do you have an idea of why the 99% mistake rate happens when CCW is used? Which by the way is exactly what was used in my scenario which prompted this email. On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 7:36 PM Mike Olivere mik...@msn.commailto:mik...@msn.com wrote: If you create your quotes in CSCC then disti should just price that quote (it will have MY discount). If you create your quotes in CCW then disti will screw it up 99% of the time. From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.netmailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Anthony Holloway Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 7:26 PM To: Cisco VoIP Group Subject: [cisco-voip] Multi-Year SmartNet Purchasing Woes Have any of you fine pre-sales folks had issues ordering multi-year SmartNet and the disti giving you final pricing on the wrong duration? E.g., You quote out 5 years, and disti changes it to 1 year. If so, can you share you experiences? Thanks. ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
[cisco-voip] 7841/7842/7845
List.xml and background image for 7841/7842/7845 I'm pretty sure are not supported. Wanted to double check. http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cuipph/7821_7841_7861/10_1/english/admin_guide/PA2D_BK_AB3F74DA_00_admin-7821-7841-7861-10_0/PA2D_BK_AB3F74DA_00_admin-7821-7841-7861-10_0_chapter_01001.html ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] Imp service default domain
We changed it a while ago with no issues. I did it when our PCs were getting rebooted anyway so that ensured Jabber was restarted. I doubt that Jabber will recover without a restart. From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Erick Wellnitz Sent: 23 April 2015 9:01 PM To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: [cisco-voip] Imp service default domain Will end users notice any difference if we change the imp service default domain other than the interruption while making the change? The contents of this message may contain confidential and/or privileged subject matter. If this message has been received in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies. Like other forms of communication, e-mail communications may be vulnerable to interception by unauthorized parties. If you do not wish us to communicate with you by e-mail, please notify us at your earliest convenience. In the absence of such notification, your consent is assumed. Should you choose to allow us to communicate by e-mail, we will not take any additional security measures (such as encryption) unless specifically requested. If you no longer wish to receive commercial messages, you can unsubscribe by accessing this link: http://www.bennettjones.com/unsubscribe ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] Cisco 8851 not failing over to backup circuit...
Just says 'registering'... we did a packet trace and it just shows an invite and a couple of refers, but no responses to it... Jonathan On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Ryan Huff ryanh...@outlook.com wrote: Are you able to see the physical phone during the event? What is the physical phone's behavior? Does the physical phone show un regestered or does the phone show the new ccm/tftps addresses eventhough it doesn't register? Whst load version on the 8851's? Thanks, Ryan Original Message From: Jonathan Charles jonv...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 04:19 PM To: Chris Ward (chrward) chrw...@cisco.com Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Cisco 8851 not failing over to backup circuit... CC: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Cranked the MTU to 1500, no change, dropped it down to 1100, no change... they will not register over the backup link... we have confirmed full connectivity over this link... Jonathan On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Chris Ward (chrward) chrw...@cisco.com wrote: VPN registration issues usually point to MTU issues. Or at least packet or fragments due to MTU issues. I suspect there is a different in packet size during the registration of these two devices or capabilities that affects packet size. When the primary link is down, you could run some ping tests while setting the ping size to 1X00 and setting the DF bit as well, this will help you find the max size packet with overhead that can fit over the tunnel. Typically VPN tunnels take at least 80 bytes of overhead, so the largest MTU I would expect you could fit over the tunnel would be 1420. I would try and adjust your tunnel MTU down to 1400 or even 1300 just as a test to see if it helps. (In my demo setups with EZVPN tunnels, I can only use 1350 max) Also, are your VPN endpoints able to fragment packets or clear DF bits so that they can fragment large packets? If you can clear df-bit at the interface, that may help move some of the larger packets through IF they have the DF-bit set. +Chris TME - Unity Connection and MediaSense *From:* cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Charles *Sent:* Friday, April 24, 2015 11:44 AM *To:* Charles Goldsmith *Cc:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Cisco 8851 not failing over to backup circuit... MTU was set to 1440, we set it to Auto, no change... Jonathan On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:13 PM, Charles Goldsmith wo...@justfamily.org wrote: What's your MTU over the backup VPN? I've seen odd issues on some networks with different providers and MTU and fragmenting packets always caused issues until the MSS was set. I'm not sure why this would affect the 8851's, but we've noticed some other oddities with the 8851's. For instance, computers with intel nic's behind the phone have issues after we apply config, and we narrowed it down to intel gigabit master slave mode setting on the driver, at least, setting that to slave instead of auto resolves the problem. Otherwise, you have to reboot the phone a couple of times to get consistent connection through the 8851. Phones are connected to a 2960 with a basic config, nothing out of the ordinary. On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 6:35 PM, Jonathan Charles jonv...@gmail.com wrote: We have CUCM 8.6.2 with Cisco 8851, Cisco 8831 phones at a remote location; they are connected over MPLS and a Peplink Balance VPN as a backup. When we yank the MPLS, the 8831 registers with CUCM and works fine the 8851s do NOT. Any reason the 8851 would act differently? Jonathan ___ 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
