[cisco-voip] Totally OT UPS question

[Scott Voll]

All--

Anyone using flywheel based UPS systems?

if so, what brands do you like?  what is the smallest you have found?  do
they make IDF sized ones?

TIA

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

Re: [cisco-voip] CER 9.x and SNMP

[Brian Meade]

No, you don't need SNMP configuration for the switches but you will need
SNMP to CUCM so it can pull the phone IP addresses.

You can also enable "Use IP Address from call signaling" on the Telephony
Settings in CER so that it uses the IP from the call signaling rather than
the periodic SNMP pulls from CUCM.

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 7:58 AM, Jason Aarons (AM) <
jason.aar...@dimensiondata.com> wrote:

>
>
> If using IP Subnet based ERLs,  is SNMP to switches required for Emergency
> Responder 9.0?  Alerts appear to be working and snmp is blocked via
> firewall (I suspect) to switches.
>
>
>
> ERL Membership > IP subnets
>
>
>
> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cer/9_0/
> english/administration/guide/CER0_BK_CBC9B8B3_00_cisco-
> emergency-responder-admin-guide/CER0_BK_CBC9B8B3_00_
> cisco-emergency-responder-admin-guide_chapter_0100.html#
> CER0_TK_S41D598F_00
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This email and all contents are subject to the following disclaimer:
> "http://www.dimensiondata.com/emaildisclaimer;
> 
>
> ___
> 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] CER 9.x and SNMP

[Jason Aarons (AM)]

   If using IP Subnet based ERLs,  is SNMP to switches required for Emergency 
Responder 9.0?  Alerts appear to be working and snmp is blocked via firewall (I 
suspect) to switches.

ERL Membership > IP subnets

http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cer/9_0/english/administration/guide/CER0_BK_CBC9B8B3_00_cisco-emergency-responder-admin-guide/CER0_BK_CBC9B8B3_00_cisco-emergency-responder-admin-guide_chapter_0100.html#CER0_TK_S41D598F_00

This email and all contents are subject to the following disclaimer:

"http://www.dimensiondata.com/emaildisclaimer;
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] CCX 11.5 Upgrade Issues

[Nathan Reeves]

I saw something similar with a fresh install / upgrade (from 11.0 to 11.5 -
didn't have a bootable 11.5 ISO) I attempted last week.

Found that the upgrade via GUI wouldn't successfully complete.  It would
get to the section that mentions releasing the upgrade lock but never
actually does so.  I posted on the cisco forums and it was suggested to do
the upgrade via cli.  This did complete successfully, but like you
encountered, services wouldn't start on the first boot following upgrade.
I completed a subsequent reboot and things came up as expected.

Was in between moving employers so haven't managed to get back to the home
lab to take any further look at logins unfort.

Nathan

On Tuesday, October 25, 2016, Matthew Loraditch <
mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:

> 11.0. It was not Finesse, that and CUIC were the only Tomcats that started
> and Finesse actually worked. Agents could login and take calls in my
> testing.
>
> The regular Tomcat service and the dependent services that run /appadmin
> /cmplatform etc would not start. This was occurring before live agents even
> logged in.
>
>
>
> *From:* avhollo...@gmail.com
>  [mailto:
> avhollo...@gmail.com
> ] *On Behalf Of *Anthony
> Holloway
> *Sent:* Monday, October 24, 2016 2:46 PM
> *To:* Matthew Loraditch  >
> *Cc:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> 
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] CCX 11.5 Upgrade Issues
>
>
>
> What UCCX version were you coming from, and what are the Finesse browser
> versions in use?
>
>
>
> I wonder if 11.5 is a resource hog, or if you might be hitting the Finesse
> Live Data issue I had a few months back when moving to UCCX 11.0 and using
> IE9 in non-compatibilty mode, and IE11 in compatibility mode.
>
>
>
> https://communities.cisco.com/thread/65762?start=0=0
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Matthew Loraditch  heliontechnologies.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> So after getting some sleep, I figured I’d publish this PSA. Don’t run CCX
> 11.5 on C200M2 BE6K. while it may be able to handle it from a numbers
> basis, It can’t handle it. 11.5 is a resource hog. Once I moved it to a
> BE7H I have and upped it to the CPU and RAM of 400 user OVA it started
> working. The RAM/CPU increase had been discussed as a possible option.
> Although I now have an OVA mismatch because I only have one hard drive.
>
>
>
> Essentially there are timeouts on the various components that run under
> tomcat and if Tomcat doesn’t come up in 10 minutes they never will come
> online.
>
>
>
> I now have to experiment with the RAM/CPU and see if it will be ok on the
> better hardware with the normal settings or not and then upgrade my normal
> hosts hardware. Boy did I have no idea what rabbit hole I was going down.
> My supervisors owe me some drinks…
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Matthew Loraditch
> *Sent:* Monday, October 24, 2016 12:21 AM
> *To:* Matthew Loraditch  >;
> NateCCIE  >; 'Ryan Huff' <
> ryanh...@outlook.com
> >
>
>
> *Cc:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> 
> *Subject:* RE: [cisco-voip] CCX 11.5 Upgrade Issues
>
>
>
> I’ve stumped the Sunday crew…. On the phone for 12 hours straight now. We
> are now escalating to the BU.
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net
> ] *On
> Behalf Of *Matthew Loraditch
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 23, 2016 12:54 PM
> *To:* NateCCIE  >; 'Ryan Huff' <
> ryanh...@outlook.com
> >
> *Cc:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> 
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] CCX 11.5 Upgrade Issues
>
>
>
> Yes that’s what I’ve found, but that’s basically telling me to build a
> whole new CA.  Which is not hard in and of itself, it’s the implications
> of  having multiple Cas and/or migrating all of the other certs. Trying to
> avoid overcomplicating things when I have zero need for that kind of
> encryption.
>
>
>
> *From:* NateCCIE [mailto:natec...@gmail.com
> ]
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 23, 2016 12:40 PM
> *To:* Matthew Loraditch  >;
> 'Ryan Huff'