Hello, does anyone have a default List.xml file from CUCM 9.1? I may have
overwritten mine with some new images that I tried to upload. I contacted TAC
about it and they didn't have a List.xml file that I could have. I stored it
in Desktops/640x480x24 and 640x480x24 folder. Now when I go
On 01-Dec-14 17:29, Sean Knight via cisco-voip wrote:
Hello, does anyone have a default List.xml file from CUCM 9.1? I may
have overwritten mine with some new images that I tried to upload. I
contacted TAC about it and they didn’t have a List.xml file that I
I've done this before with a large Avaya setup. We had all of the UC stuff
in a separate VRF and all soft clients had to come through an SBC for
registration. We demoed Sipera and Acme. Sipera got the job done cheaper,
but Acme scaled much better for us. I think CUCM supports Acme SBCs as
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
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
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
On Dec 1, 2014, at 5:12 PM, Daniel Pagan
Hoping to get some
We are seeing an odd error on a migration from a Nortel setup over to an
the error message after entering PRI 2 is
*crsvr1(config-controller)#pri-group timeslots 1-24 nfas_ backup nfas_int 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 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
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.
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.
From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Brian
Correct. The new cicilync is more like jabber. If you go to the o365 cloud
it pretty much breaks everything. Good luck
On Monday, December 1, 2014, george.hend...@l-3com.com wrote:
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.
From: bmead...@gmail.com [mailto:bmead...@gmail.com] On
What OS/Browser versions? If IE have you tried Compatibility mode?
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
Mail list logo