[cisco-voip] PVDM
Hi everyone, The following is a snippet from the detail order for Cisco 2901 voice router: 1. C2901-CME-SRST/K9 - 2901 Voice Bundle w/ PVDM3-16,FL-CME-SRST-25, UC License PAK 2. PVDM3-16U32 - PVDM3 16-channel to 32-channel factory upgrade What does the PVDM3-16U32 mean? is it a separate PVDM or license? also if I want to purchase a VWIC3-2MFT-T1/E1, what is the PVDM3 type I have to get? (I dont have the right login credentials to use DSP calculator) best regards, Abebe ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] PVDM
Thanks James for the explanation. From your reply I understand that I have a 32 channel DSP on the PVDM3-16U32. If I purchase a PVDM3-64, on top of the existing one, I will have 96 channels. Is that correct? best regards, Abebe On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:22 AM, James Buchanan james.buchan...@gmail.comwrote: Hello, They are taking the 16-channel DSP and upgrading it to 32-channels. The number of DSP channels you need depending on how many channels of the PRI you intend to use, plus conferencing and transcoding. This particular VWIC card can do 60 channels as an E1 and 48 channels as a T1. Do you intend to configure two PRIs? If so, you need one DSP channel per T1/E1 channel as a minimum. I would recommend upgrading the 32 channels to a minimum of 96 channels so that you have enough resources for both T1/E1 ports plus transcoding and conferencing. Now, the number of DSP channels also depends on what codec you intend to use. For example G.729 is a high-density codec, meaning that more DSP channels might be required for transcoding. G.729b does not use as many DSP channels. I hope this helps! James On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Abebe Amare abu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi everyone, The following is a snippet from the detail order for Cisco 2901 voice router: 1. C2901-CME-SRST/K9 - 2901 Voice Bundle w/ PVDM3-16,FL-CME-SRST-25, UC License PAK 2. PVDM3-16U32 - PVDM3 16-channel to 32-channel factory upgrade What does the PVDM3-16U32 mean? is it a separate PVDM or license? also if I want to purchase a VWIC3-2MFT-T1/E1, what is the PVDM3 type I have to get? (I dont have the right login credentials to use DSP calculator) best regards, Abebe ___ 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] PVDM
Exactly. However, you may want to price adding the 64-channel versus upgrading the 16 to a 64 and adding a 32. It'll probably be close in price, but just compare. An alternative would be to just upgrading the 16 to a 128, and that would leave you a free slot for more DSPs in the future. On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Abebe Amare abu...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks James for the explanation. From your reply I understand that I have a 32 channel DSP on the PVDM3-16U32. If I purchase a PVDM3-64, on top of the existing one, I will have 96 channels. Is that correct? best regards, Abebe On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:22 AM, James Buchanan james.buchan...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, They are taking the 16-channel DSP and upgrading it to 32-channels. The number of DSP channels you need depending on how many channels of the PRI you intend to use, plus conferencing and transcoding. This particular VWIC card can do 60 channels as an E1 and 48 channels as a T1. Do you intend to configure two PRIs? If so, you need one DSP channel per T1/E1 channel as a minimum. I would recommend upgrading the 32 channels to a minimum of 96 channels so that you have enough resources for both T1/E1 ports plus transcoding and conferencing. Now, the number of DSP channels also depends on what codec you intend to use. For example G.729 is a high-density codec, meaning that more DSP channels might be required for transcoding. G.729b does not use as many DSP channels. I hope this helps! James On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Abebe Amare abu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi everyone, The following is a snippet from the detail order for Cisco 2901 voice router: 1. C2901-CME-SRST/K9 - 2901 Voice Bundle w/ PVDM3-16,FL-CME-SRST-25, UC License PAK 2. PVDM3-16U32 - PVDM3 16-channel to 32-channel factory upgrade What does the PVDM3-16U32 mean? is it a separate PVDM or license? also if I want to purchase a VWIC3-2MFT-T1/E1, what is the PVDM3 type I have to get? (I dont have the right login credentials to use DSP calculator) best regards, Abebe ___ 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] PVDM
Thanks James for your support. best regards, Abebe On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:57 AM, James Buchanan james.buchan...@gmail.comwrote: Exactly. However, you may want to price adding the 64-channel versus upgrading the 16 to a 64 and adding a 32. It'll probably be close in price, but just compare. An alternative would be to just upgrading the 16 to a 128, and that would leave you a free slot for more DSPs in the future. On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Abebe Amare abu...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks James for the explanation. From your reply I understand that I have a 32 channel DSP on the PVDM3-16U32. If I purchase a PVDM3-64, on top of the existing one, I will have 96 channels. Is that correct? best regards, Abebe On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:22 AM, James Buchanan james.buchan...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, They are taking the 16-channel DSP and upgrading it to 32-channels. The number of DSP channels you need depending on how many channels of the PRI you intend to use, plus conferencing and transcoding. This particular VWIC card can do 60 channels as an E1 and 48 channels as a T1. Do you intend to configure two PRIs? If so, you need one DSP channel per T1/E1 channel as a minimum. I would recommend upgrading the 32 channels to a minimum of 96 channels so that you have enough resources for both T1/E1 ports plus transcoding and conferencing. Now, the number of DSP channels also depends on what codec you intend to use. For example G.729 is a high-density codec, meaning that more DSP channels might be required for transcoding. G.729b does not use as many DSP channels. I hope this helps! James On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Abebe Amare abu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi everyone, The following is a snippet from the detail order for Cisco 2901 voice router: 1. C2901-CME-SRST/K9 - 2901 Voice Bundle w/ PVDM3-16,FL-CME-SRST-25, UC License PAK 2. PVDM3-16U32 - PVDM3 16-channel to 32-channel factory upgrade What does the PVDM3-16U32 mean? is it a separate PVDM or license? also if I want to purchase a VWIC3-2MFT-T1/E1, what is the PVDM3 type I have to get? (I dont have the right login credentials to use DSP calculator) best regards, Abebe ___ 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] PVDM
To add confusion, should you want to do 3-way+ video conferencing with 9971/Cameras you need a minimum PVDM3-128 for that. Google Homogeneous and Heterogeneous video conference. The CME Admin guide has a pretty good section on Video, and it similarly applies to CUCM. From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of James Buchanan Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 3:57 AM To: Abebe Amare Cc: cisco voip Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] PVDM Exactly. However, you may want to price adding the 64-channel versus upgrading the 16 to a 64 and adding a 32. It'll probably be close in price, but just compare. An alternative would be to just upgrading the 16 to a 128, and that would leave you a free slot for more DSPs in the future. On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Abebe Amare abu...@gmail.commailto:abu...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks James for the explanation. From your reply I understand that I have a 32 channel DSP on the PVDM3-16U32. If I purchase a PVDM3-64, on top of the existing one, I will have 96 channels. Is that correct? best regards, Abebe On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:22 AM, James Buchanan james.buchan...@gmail.commailto:james.buchan...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, They are taking the 16-channel DSP and upgrading it to 32-channels. The number of DSP channels you need depending on how many channels of the PRI you intend to use, plus conferencing and transcoding. This particular VWIC card can do 60 channels as an E1 and 48 channels as a T1. Do you intend to configure two PRIs? If so, you need one DSP channel per T1/E1 channel as a minimum. I would recommend upgrading the 32 channels to a minimum of 96 channels so that you have enough resources for both T1/E1 ports plus transcoding and conferencing. Now, the number of DSP channels also depends on what codec you intend to use. For example G.729 is a high-density codec, meaning that more DSP channels might be required for transcoding. G.729b does not use as many DSP channels. I hope this helps! James On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Abebe Amare abu...@gmail.commailto:abu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi everyone, The following is a snippet from the detail order for Cisco 2901 voice router: 1. C2901-CME-SRST/K9 - 2901 Voice Bundle w/ PVDM3-16,FL-CME-SRST-25, UC License PAK 2. PVDM3-16U32 - PVDM3 16-channel to 32-channel factory upgrade What does the PVDM3-16U32 mean? is it a separate PVDM or license? also if I want to purchase a VWIC3-2MFT-T1/E1, what is the PVDM3 type I have to get? (I dont have the right login credentials to use DSP calculator) best regards, Abebe ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.netmailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip itevomcid ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] Anyone using the Cisco 300 Series switches? Unable to get Auto Voice VLAN to work
The only that i found to make Voice VLAN work ate this device, is to map the beginning of MAC address of some phones that will be attached at this Switch. We are using at this customer 69XX series phones and CUCM 8.6. This is the config: ! voice vlan id 3 voice vlan state oui-enabled voice vlan oui-table add 28940f CISCO___ voice vlan oui-table add 44d3ca CISCO___ voice vlan oui-table add 503de5 CISCO___ voice vlan oui-table add 649ef3 CISCO___ ! interface fastethernet1/2/1 spanning-tree portfast switchport trunk native vlan XX (PC VLAN) lldp optional-tlv port-desc sys-name sys-desc sys-cap 802.3-mac-phy 802.3-lag 802.3-max-frame-size lldp med notifications topology-change enable lldp med enable network-policy poe-pse macro description ip_phone_desktop voice vlan enable voice vlan cos mode all no macro auto smartport !next command is internal. macro auto smartport dynamic_type unknown -- Michel Perez Skype: michelmbperez michelmbpe...@gmail.com http://br.linkedin.com/in/michelmbperez 2014-05-20 15:42 GMT-03:00 Jeffrey Girard jeffrey.gir...@girardinc.com: Coy – That would be very helpful. I would appreciate the assistance if you could provide me that information. Thanks! *From:* coy.h...@coyhile.com [mailto:coy.h...@coyhile.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, May 20, 2014 2:41 PM *To:* Jeffrey Girard *Cc:* bmead...@vt.edu; Cisco VOIP (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Anyone using the Cisco 300 Series switches? Unable to get Auto Voice VLAN to work I've used these at home and got them to work in the lab. I think I had to define LLDP profiles for the specific phones I was using as voice OUIs or some such. Been a while. I can try to grab a config and check if that would be helpful. -c Sent from my iPhone On May 20, 2014, at 13:45, Jeffrey Girard jeffrey.gir...@girardinc.com wrote: Yes, VLAN 30 is a regular VLAN. You can make it a voice vlan unless its already created as a regular vlan *From:* bmead...@gmail.com [mailto:bmead...@gmail.com bmead...@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Brian Meade *Sent:* Tuesday, May 20, 2014 1:44 PM *To:* Jeffrey Girard *Cc:* Cisco VOIP (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Anyone using the Cisco 300 Series switches? Unable to get Auto Voice VLAN to work Do you have VLAN 30 defined under VLAN Management or just under the Voice VLAN section? Make sure it's added as a regular VLAN first. On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Jeffrey Girard jeffrey.gir...@girardinc.com wrote: Im playing with a SG300-10MP in a lab for a potential client purchase. I am unable to get the Auto Voice VLAN function to work correctly. I have set the “user ports” as untagged for VLAN 20 (data vlan) Under VLAN Management - Voice VLAN - Properties, I have defined VLAN 30 as the voice vlan and enabled the auto voice vlan with activation immediate. CDP and LLDP are all configured (defaults). Smartport features are all defaults. I have connected two IP Phones – a 7941 and and a 7940. Both draw an IP address from the attached router (port 9 on the switch is configured as a trunk up to a router running DHCP) – but an IP address out of the data VLAN. As they don’t get an Option 150 address, they don’t register. When I look at the Smartport Interface settings for ports 7 and 8, it indicates Smartport Application Method is disabled as the Smartport Type is Unknown. I also attached a regular laptop to Port 5 on the switch. It drew a data vlan IP address and it too showed up as Smartport Type Unknown So, I ran the diagnostics on the two ports to which the IP phones were attached. The macro is failing at the line “smartport switchport trunk allowed vlan add *$voice-vlan*” So, this makes sense to me. The macro is not applying the voice vlan to the switchport, hence the phone is not getting the correct vlan and thus not getting the correct dhcp scope and tftp service IP address. So, the question is, why is the macro failing? I go back to the Voice Vlan properties page and confirm that I have 30 set for the voice vlan and that I have applied the change. The page shows that the operational status of the voice vlan is 30. Anyone run into this or have any suggestions? Dr. Jeffrey T. Girard (Jeff), PhD Colonel, United States Army (Retired) Senior Network Engineer / VoIP Engineer - WireMeHappy.com reply to: jeffrey.gir...@wiremehappy.com (607)835-0406 (home office) (845)764-1661 (mobile) (607)835-0458 (fax) ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
[cisco-voip] Heartbeat Failure SNRD
Folks: CUCM ES 8.6.2.24122-1 appears to be creating an issue where CallManager heartbeat fails to increment upon startup and the condition that must be met is very specific. On a problematic node, SDL traces show the following error exactly one hour after the start of the CCM service: AppError ||Local send blocked: SignalName: Start, DestPID: SNRD[1:100:61:1] This error is followed by the SDL trace printing an error stating CallManager exceeded the permitted time for initialization and will restart the application. The CCM application restarts and additional SDL traces are printed showing the standard creation of critical processes - one hour later the same Local send blocked error is printed regarding the SNRD process. I saw the DestPID: SNRD error, went to a completely different, non-problematic lab environment where 8.6.2.24122-1 is installed, created a single Remote Destination Profile, and then restarted the standalone node in order to force the creation of SNRD. CallManager heartbeats are now failing to increment in that environment and found another Local send blocked error regarding SNRD. Removing the single Remote Destination Profile from the standalone environment and rebooting the node resolves the problem. Re-inserting it again followed by a reboot recreates it, making SNRD the obvious culprit here. I currently have a TAC case open where they're attempting to recreate the problem. It seems no public facing defects are created for this. Just wanted to give you folks a heads up. Related to this, can someone tell me if this document, specifally the section describing MMManInit and process creation, is still accurate? If so, then what I fail to see in SDL traces is a InitDone signal from SNRD to MMManInit during the 60 minutes between CCM startup and initialization timeout. - Daniel ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] Heartbeat Failure SNRD
To be more specific, SDL traces show MMManInit sending a DeviceInitStart to DeviceManager, and then, immediately after, DeviceManager creating SNRD. All process creation and startup signals die at this point. This is observable and reproducible in two different environments running the same ES 8.6.2.24122-1. - Daniel From: Daniel Pagan Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 9:35 AM To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Heartbeat Failure SNRD Folks: CUCM ES 8.6.2.24122-1 appears to be creating an issue where CallManager heartbeat fails to increment upon startup and the condition that must be met is very specific. On a problematic node, SDL traces show the following error exactly one hour after the start of the CCM service: AppError ||Local send blocked: SignalName: Start, DestPID: SNRD[1:100:61:1] This error is followed by the SDL trace printing an error stating CallManager exceeded the permitted time for initialization and will restart the application. The CCM application restarts and additional SDL traces are printed showing the standard creation of critical processes - one hour later the same Local send blocked error is printed regarding the SNRD process. I saw the DestPID: SNRD error, went to a completely different, non-problematic lab environment where 8.6.2.24122-1 is installed, created a single Remote Destination Profile, and then restarted the standalone node in order to force the creation of SNRD. CallManager heartbeats are now failing to increment in that environment and found another Local send blocked error regarding SNRD. Removing the single Remote Destination Profile from the standalone environment and rebooting the node resolves the problem. Re-inserting it again followed by a reboot recreates it, making SNRD the obvious culprit here. I currently have a TAC case open where they're attempting to recreate the problem. It seems no public facing defects are created for this. Just wanted to give you folks a heads up. Related to this, can someone tell me if this document, specifally the section describing MMManInit and process creation, is still accurate? If so, then what I fail to see in SDL traces is a InitDone signal from SNRD to MMManInit during the 60 minutes between CCM startup and initialization timeout. - Daniel ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] PVDM
One thing to be aware of is some distributors will give you two 16 cards rather than one 32 when you buy the upgrade SKU. Make sure to specifically request a single PVDM so that you can easily add another PVDM to the spare slot eventually when needed. On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 3:57 AM, James Buchanan james.buchan...@gmail.comwrote: Exactly. However, you may want to price adding the 64-channel versus upgrading the 16 to a 64 and adding a 32. It'll probably be close in price, but just compare. An alternative would be to just upgrading the 16 to a 128, and that would leave you a free slot for more DSPs in the future. On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Abebe Amare abu...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks James for the explanation. From your reply I understand that I have a 32 channel DSP on the PVDM3-16U32. If I purchase a PVDM3-64, on top of the existing one, I will have 96 channels. Is that correct? best regards, Abebe On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:22 AM, James Buchanan james.buchan...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, They are taking the 16-channel DSP and upgrading it to 32-channels. The number of DSP channels you need depending on how many channels of the PRI you intend to use, plus conferencing and transcoding. This particular VWIC card can do 60 channels as an E1 and 48 channels as a T1. Do you intend to configure two PRIs? If so, you need one DSP channel per T1/E1 channel as a minimum. I would recommend upgrading the 32 channels to a minimum of 96 channels so that you have enough resources for both T1/E1 ports plus transcoding and conferencing. Now, the number of DSP channels also depends on what codec you intend to use. For example G.729 is a high-density codec, meaning that more DSP channels might be required for transcoding. G.729b does not use as many DSP channels. I hope this helps! James On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Abebe Amare abu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi everyone, The following is a snippet from the detail order for Cisco 2901 voice router: 1. C2901-CME-SRST/K9 - 2901 Voice Bundle w/ PVDM3-16,FL-CME-SRST-25, UC License PAK 2. PVDM3-16U32 - PVDM3 16-channel to 32-channel factory upgrade What does the PVDM3-16U32 mean? is it a separate PVDM or license? also if I want to purchase a VWIC3-2MFT-T1/E1, what is the PVDM3 type I have to get? (I dont have the right login credentials to use DSP calculator) best regards, Abebe ___ 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 mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
[cisco-voip] International TEHO challenges
Did a google search but want to verify that there is no authoritative list of countries where TEHO is prohibited. I find international TEHO, especially to less developed countries to be a minefield of regulations. ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] International TEHO challenges
You get into a mess of regulatory issues. Often I find that a cost to call in-country might be cheaper had I dialed the number another method than TEHO. Say for example International. I once setup TEHO from Atlanta, GA to go out Charlotte, NC for area code 704 calls. Turns out customer was actually calling Shelby, NC which was a intra-lata rate which the telco then charged more for. Had I just called it Long Distance it would have been far cheaper. Then you have design issues with TEHO. How many people are going to be calling to another city, and will that create utilization issues with incoming calls in that city? I was a fan of TEHO in the 1980s but no longer. Seems the international rates have gotten more competitive over the years , and internally we chat/im more and more than call via PSTN. From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Erick Wellnitz Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 12:11 PM To: cisco-voip Subject: [cisco-voip] International TEHO challenges Did a google search but want to verify that there is no authoritative list of countries where TEHO is prohibited. I find international TEHO, especially to less developed countries to be a minefield of regulations. itevomcid ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] Anyone using the Cisco 300 Series switches? Unable to get
The auto smartport and VLAN assignment doesn't work unless you have the auto smartport enabled (which you don't below) and the switch receives a CDP packet from the uplink which tells it what's up. I was not a fan of smart port for these, and they are not supported in CER either. Adam Message: 18 Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 10:04:52 -0300 From: Michel L. M. B. Perez michelmbpe...@gmail.com To: Jeffrey Girard jeffrey.gir...@girardinc.com Cc: Cisco VOIP \(cisco-voip@puck.nether.net\) cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Anyone using the Cisco 300 Series switches? Unable to get Auto Voice VLAN to work Message-ID: CAGxpHypVMA6ZGRkDZTUwvu5RUM9xussBvwjAy6=vsvbajvp...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 The only that i found to make Voice VLAN work ate this device, is to map the beginning of MAC address of some phones that will be attached at this Switch. We are using at this customer 69XX series phones and CUCM 8.6. This is the config: ! voice vlan id 3 voice vlan state oui-enabled voice vlan oui-table add 28940f CISCO___ voice vlan oui-table add 44d3ca CISCO___ voice vlan oui-table add 503de5 CISCO___ voice vlan oui-table add 649ef3 CISCO___ ! interface fastethernet1/2/1 spanning-tree portfast switchport trunk native vlan XX (PC VLAN) lldp optional-tlv port-desc sys-name sys-desc sys-cap 802.3-mac-phy 802.3-lag 802.3-max-frame-size lldp med notifications topology-change enable lldp med enable network-policy poe-pse macro description ip_phone_desktop voice vlan enable voice vlan cos mode all no macro auto smartport !next command is internal. macro auto smartport dynamic_type unknown -- Michel Perez Skype: michelmbperez michelmbpe...@gmail.com http://br.linkedin.com/in/michelmbperez ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] International TEHO challenges
No disagreement there. It's definitely a pain. Have to see how the politics play out on this one before doing too much work. On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Jason Aarons (AM) jason.aar...@dimensiondata.com wrote: You get into a mess of regulatory issues. Often I find that a cost to call in-country might be cheaper had I dialed the number another method than TEHO. Say for example International. I once setup TEHO from Atlanta, GA to go out Charlotte, NC for area code 704 calls. Turns out customer was actually calling Shelby, NC which was a intra-lata rate which the telco then charged more for. Had I just called it Long Distance it would have been far cheaper. Then you have design issues with TEHO. How many people are going to be calling to another city, and will that create utilization issues with incoming calls in that city? I was a fan of TEHO in the 1980s but no longer. Seems the international rates have gotten more competitive over the years , and internally we chat/im more and more than call via PSTN. *From:* cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] *On Behalf Of *Erick Wellnitz *Sent:* Wednesday, May 21, 2014 12:11 PM *To:* cisco-voip *Subject:* [cisco-voip] International TEHO challenges Did a google search but want to verify that there is no authoritative list of countries where TEHO is prohibited. I find international TEHO, especially to less developed countries to be a minefield of regulations. itevomcid ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
[cisco-voip] Phone directory search match
Hey Guys, Where is the setting to allow wildcard matches for searching the directory on the phone? We're LDAP integrated, and when I search for someone by DN, I have to enter the number starting with first digits of the user's number or it doesn't match. For example, if I search for someone with the number 702-852-0123 and I only enter 0123 in the phone, nothing matches. But if I enter 702852, it and any other number that starts that way also matches. I know this sounds crazy, but some users are asking about it. Apparently, this previously worked on the old CUCM 8.5 cluster, and doesn't work on the new CUCM 9.1 cluster. Thanks, Bill ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] Heartbeat Failure SNRD
Hi Daniel, Great find! For the document: http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/voice-unified-communications/unified-communications-manager-callmanager/46806-cm-crashes-and-shutdowns.html The initialization process and timers have changed *significantly* since 4.x. Some examples include: CSCsj76788cp-system request to remove initialization timers “... remove the initialization timers that are started during CUCM initialization. These timer would previously cause a system restart under certain circumstance…” Still, there is a global maximum timeout. Individual Daemons must report start and successful initiation by that time. Historically behavior like you discuss was triggered by service parameters being missing or having incorrect values. This may be a problem with connection to the database ( CSCsc72748 ) or problem with the contents of the database. Other problems include another process grabbing one of the TCP or UDP ports required by the ccm process. ccm had many issues retrieving initialization information from the database in early linux versions. refinements to informix and in memory database (IMDB) have helped significantly. -Wes On May 21, 2014, at 9:33 AM, Daniel Pagan dpa...@fidelus.commailto:dpa...@fidelus.com wrote: Folks: CUCM ES 8.6.2.24122-1 appears to be creating an issue where CallManager heartbeat fails to increment upon startup and the condition that must be met is very specific. On a problematic node, SDL traces show the following error exactly one hour after the start of the CCM service: AppError ||Local send blocked: SignalName: Start, DestPID: SNRD[1:100:61:1] This error is followed by the SDL trace printing an error stating CallManager exceeded the permitted time for initialization and will restart the application. The CCM application restarts and additional SDL traces are printed showing the standard creation of critical processes – one hour later the same “Local send blocked” error is printed regarding the SNRD process. I saw the DestPID: SNRD error, went to a completely different, non-problematic lab environment where 8.6.2.24122-1 is installed, created a single Remote Destination Profile, and then restarted the standalone node in order to force the creation of SNRD. CallManager heartbeats are now failing to increment in that environment and found another “Local send blocked” error regarding SNRD. Removing the single Remote Destination Profile from the standalone environment and rebooting the node resolves the problem. Re-inserting it again followed by a reboot recreates it, making SNRD the obvious culprit here. I currently have a TAC case open where they’re attempting to recreate the problem. It seems no public facing defects are created for this. Just wanted to give you folks a heads up. Related to this, can someone tell me if this document, specifally the section describing MMManInit and process creation, is still accurate? If so, then what I fail to see in SDL traces is a InitDone signal from SNRD to MMManInit during the 60 minutes between CCM startup and initialization timeout. - Daniel ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.netmailto: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] Project Mgmt Software
*All:* I'm looking to know what Cloud PM software your company is using. We are looking into several products and wanted to know what other Professional Services organizations are using. Sincerely, Ryan Burtch ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] Project Mgmt Software
I'm not a PM, but I've encountered ConnectWise on more than one occasion. That's about all I can contribute to the topic. Good luck. On Wednesday, May 21, 2014, Ryan Burtch rburt...@gmail.com wrote: *All:* I'm looking to know what Cloud PM software your company is using. We are looking into several products and wanted to know what other Professional Services organizations are using. Sincerely, Ryan Burtch ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] Project Mgmt Software
...Besides ConnectWise. I hate ConnectWise lol. But thank you for the input. Looking for something more robust. Sincerely, Ryan Burtch On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Anthony Holloway avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not a PM, but I've encountered ConnectWise on more than one occasion. That's about all I can contribute to the topic. Good luck. On Wednesday, May 21, 2014, Ryan Burtch rburt...@gmail.com wrote: *All:* I'm looking to know what Cloud PM software your company is using. We are looking into several products and wanted to know what other Professional Services organizations are using. Sincerely, Ryan Burtch ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
[cisco-voip] Cisco 7900 series phone Nessus scan
When performing a Nessus scan on a 7970 Cisco phone running SCCP70.9-3-1SR4-1S code (the latest I can find), it reports the following medium vulnerability: RomPager HTTP Referer Header XSS Description The remote RomPager HTTP server is affected by a cross-site scripting vulnerability. The server does not properly sanitize the referer header value when generating a 404 error page. Solution Upgrade to RomPager 4.51 or later. See Also http://www.nessus.org/u?54798697 I also receive this same vulnerability when scanning a 7961 and a 9951 phone. I've done some googling and don't find anything relevant to locking this down on a Cisco phone. Any suggestions? Thanks, Go0se -- Help Hopegivers International feed the orphans of Haiti and India http://www.hopegivers.org -- ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] Cisco 7900 series phone Nessus scan
You could just disable web access :) On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:05 PM, m...@go0se.com wrote: When performing a Nessus scan on a 7970 Cisco phone running SCCP70.9-3-1SR4-1S code (the latest I can find), it reports the following medium vulnerability: RomPager HTTP Referer Header XSS Description The remote RomPager HTTP server is affected by a cross-site scripting vulnerability. The server does not properly sanitize the referer header value when generating a 404 error page. Solution Upgrade to RomPager 4.51 or later. See Also http://www.nessus.org/u?54798697 I also receive this same vulnerability when scanning a 7961 and a 9951 phone. I've done some googling and don't find anything relevant to locking this down on a Cisco phone. Any suggestions? Thanks, Go0se -- Help Hopegivers International feed the orphans of Haiti and India http://www.hopegivers.org -- ___ 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] Project Mgmt Software
Hey mate, Main competition to ConnectWise seems to be AutoTask which looks quite a bit nicer than CW, and I think was designed as SaaS from ground up. We’ve done a few demos of it (they can give you a demo account to check it out if you ask) Similar to CW, probably not the best PM specific tool, but it is for the guys that want pretty much all business functions in one package. I think there are also some companies providing hosted MS Project Server instances. Cheers, Tim From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Ryan Burtch Sent: Thursday, 22 May 2014 6:30 AM To: Anthony Holloway Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Project Mgmt Software ...Besides ConnectWise. I hate ConnectWise lol. But thank you for the input. Looking for something more robust. Sincerely, Ryan Burtch On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Anthony Holloway avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.commailto:avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not a PM, but I've encountered ConnectWise on more than one occasion. That's about all I can contribute to the topic. Good luck. On Wednesday, May 21, 2014, Ryan Burtch rburt...@gmail.commailto:rburt...@gmail.com wrote: All: I'm looking to know what Cloud PM software your company is using. We are looking into several products and wanted to know what other Professional Services organizations are using. Sincerely, Ryan Burtch ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] Cisco 7900 series phone Nessus scan
Were you able to successfully inject the Referer per the nessus.org database article using nmap? The list of affected devices didn’t list any Cisco products, but test anyway. http://antoniovazquezblanco.github.io/docs/advisories/Advisory_RomPagerXSS.pdf I always worry about generic nessus scans. You really have to know what your doing, and my experience is that the person doing a Nessus scan really isn’t a security guru and won’t fact check what Nessus reports. From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of m...@go0se.com Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 5:06 PM To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: [cisco-voip] Cisco 7900 series phone Nessus scan When performing a Nessus scan on a 7970 Cisco phone running SCCP70.9-3-1SR4-1S code (the latest I can find), it reports the following medium vulnerability: RomPager HTTP Referer Header XSS Description The remote RomPager HTTP server is affected by a cross-site scripting vulnerability. The server does not properly sanitize the referer header value when generating a 404 error page. Solution Upgrade to RomPager 4.51 or later. See Also http://www.nessus.org/u?54798697 I also receive this same vulnerability when scanning a 7961 and a 9951 phone. I've done some googling and don't find anything relevant to locking this down on a Cisco phone. Any suggestions? Thanks, Go0se -- Help Hopegivers International feed the orphans of Haiti and India http://www.hopegivers.org -- ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.netmailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip itevomcid ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
