[cisco-voip] Consolidate two separate UCCX cluster and migrate to 9.x
Team, I have a customer who has two separate UCCX HA cluster with their respective CUCM cluster (merging two companies). They would like to merge both CUCM and UCCX cluster to one cluster and upgrade them to 9.x. They are running CUCM version *7.1.3.1-11* and UCCX cluster running *7.0(2) Build254*. What is the best way to do this? Can they keep both historical data from UCCX and move them to 9.x ? I know this is not possible but just want to see if anyone has done it before. We have already built new 9.x CUCM and UCCX cluster with new set of IP addresses with blank configurations. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks, Ashwani ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] Consolidate two separate UCCX cluster and migrate to 9.x
Ashwani, At this point, I question why you don't upgrade to 10.5. Coming off 7.1, you're in for a major jump/upgrade path, you might as well go the last two versions and be current. Also, you didn't make clear if you're going to 9.0, or 9.1. They will have different EOS dates. Cisco has not made public any EOS/EOL statements about CUCM9.x, but based off this chart: http://www.voicecerts.com/2011/05/cisco-unified-communications-manager.html (Not on the chart, 8.6, which was EOS January 2014) I wouldn't be surprised to see an EOL statement in the next calendar year for 9.0. I personally think we'll see it in January. If you have a Cisco Account Manager, and have signed an NDA, you might be able to get the EOS date from him. I wouldn't guess what 9.1 EOS date would be. As for Merging two clusters together, I don't think with that big a jump, you'll be able to keep the historical data. I believe UCCX 7 still ran on Windows, and UCCX 9 is on Linux, I don't think this data is carried over. Perhaps someone with more experience with these types of upgrades will comment. I recommend practicing your upgrade several times. With this big of a jump practicing several times (Looking at you Leilo and your Saga) will expose upgrade issues in the lab, not in production. Mike On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Ashwani R ashw...@ranpise.com wrote: Team, I have a customer who has two separate UCCX HA cluster with their respective CUCM cluster (merging two companies). They would like to merge both CUCM and UCCX cluster to one cluster and upgrade them to 9.x. They are running CUCM version *7.1.3.1-11* and UCCX cluster running *7.0(2) Build254*. What is the best way to do this? Can they keep both historical data from UCCX and move them to 9.x ? I know this is not possible but just want to see if anyone has done it before. We have already built new 9.x CUCM and UCCX cluster with new set of IP addresses with blank configurations. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks, Ashwani ___ 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] Consolidate two separate UCCX cluster and migrate to 9.x
Ashwani, Since you’re taking 2 separate CCX servers, and migrating to 1 there is no way to bring over Historical data from the older version as part of the upgrade. As this is Historical data, I would advise the supervisors to generate all the reports they’ll need the week before the cutover and then do a clean cut on the new version. How big is the call center as far as applications/skills/scripts/etc? If small enough, you will save yourself lots of heartache and time if you treat the new cluster as new and manually migrate the 2 call centers over. This task is fairly easy if old and new are both online. I would also agree with Mike and suggest you bring it up to 10.5, just note that HRC is no longer used and the Reporting users will have to be trained on CUIC if you do that. Kevin P. From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mike King Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 9:40 AM To: Cisco VoIPoE List Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Consolidate two separate UCCX cluster and migrate to 9.x Ashwani, At this point, I question why you don't upgrade to 10.5. Coming off 7.1, you're in for a major jump/upgrade path, you might as well go the last two versions and be current. Also, you didn't make clear if you're going to 9.0, or 9.1. They will have different EOS dates. Cisco has not made public any EOS/EOL statements about CUCM9.x, but based off this chart: http://www.voicecerts.com/2011/05/cisco-unified-communications-manager.html (Not on the chart, 8.6, which was EOS January 2014) I wouldn't be surprised to see an EOL statement in the next calendar year for 9.0. I personally think we'll see it in January. If you have a Cisco Account Manager, and have signed an NDA, you might be able to get the EOS date from him. I wouldn't guess what 9.1 EOS date would be. As for Merging two clusters together, I don't think with that big a jump, you'll be able to keep the historical data. I believe UCCX 7 still ran on Windows, and UCCX 9 is on Linux, I don't think this data is carried over. Perhaps someone with more experience with these types of upgrades will comment. I recommend practicing your upgrade several times. With this big of a jump practicing several times (Looking at you Leilo and your Saga) will expose upgrade issues in the lab, not in production. Mike On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Ashwani R ashw...@ranpise.commailto:ashw...@ranpise.com wrote: Team, I have a customer who has two separate UCCX HA cluster with their respective CUCM cluster (merging two companies). They would like to merge both CUCM and UCCX cluster to one cluster and upgrade them to 9.x. They are running CUCM version 7.1.3.1-11 and UCCX cluster running 7.0(2) Build254. What is the best way to do this? Can they keep both historical data from UCCX and move them to 9.x ? I know this is not possible but just want to see if anyone has done it before. We have already built new 9.x CUCM and UCCX cluster with new set of IP addresses with blank configurations. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks, Ashwani ___ 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] Call track
Hi Guys, I am using CUCM 7 cluster and with multi VG MGCP at different location. My Telecom provider has given list of unauthorized calls made from us. So where we can investigate in cucm. I collected CDR a nd cucm trace thert are showing some unsuccessful call attempts. Is there any strong methodology to collect all reports -- Regards, Dharambir Kumar ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] Call track
Are these recent calls or historical? Do you currently have any type of call accounting system where your CDR's are currently sent? If these are recent calls you can start with the Real Time Data in the RTMT. Thanks, Ryan Huff ryanthomashuff.com CCNA R/S, CCNA Wireless, CCNP Voice, UCCX Specialist Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:12:32 +0530 From: dharambi...@gmail.com To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: [cisco-voip] Call track Hi Guys, I am using CUCM 7 cluster and with multi VG MGCP at different location. My Telecom provider has given list of unauthorized calls made from us. So where we can investigate in cucm.I collected CDR a nd cucm trace thert are showing some unsuccessful call attempts. Is there any strong methodology to collect all reports -- Regards, Dharambir Kumar ___ 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] Consolidate two separate UCCX cluster and migrate to 9.x
First - your target version should be the 10.6 release which is Communications Manager 10.5.2 and CCX 10.6.1. You merging of UCCX should also include going to Finesse and dropping CAD. If you have a non-overlapping dial plan the merging is simple. However if you have to do a lot of dial plan work it can be a good challenge. In this case I would support the decision to build fresh and merge into one new cluster. This will allow you to build new dial plans, new UCCX integration, and move site by site or by application. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Ashwani Rmailto:ashw...@ranpise.com Sent: 12/18/2014 8:39 AM To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.netmailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: [cisco-voip] Consolidate two separate UCCX cluster and migrate to 9.x Team, I have a customer who has two separate UCCX HA cluster with their respective CUCM cluster (merging two companies). They would like to merge both CUCM and UCCX cluster to one cluster and upgrade them to 9.x. They are running CUCM version *7.1.3.1-11* and UCCX cluster running *7.0(2) Build254*. What is the best way to do this? Can they keep both historical data from UCCX and move them to 9.x ? I know this is not possible but just want to see if anyone has done it before. We have already built new 9.x CUCM and UCCX cluster with new set of IP addresses with blank configurations. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks, Ashwani ___ 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] Consolidate two separate UCCX cluster and migrate to 9.x
Wow, 10.6 snuck in there… looks like they got e-mail support for finesse in there which is a great help. From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Josh Warcop Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 2:18 PM To: Ashwani R; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Consolidate two separate UCCX cluster and migrate to 9.x First - your target version should be the 10.6 release which is Communications Manager 10.5.2 and CCX 10.6.1. You merging of UCCX should also include going to Finesse and dropping CAD. If you have a non-overlapping dial plan the merging is simple. However if you have to do a lot of dial plan work it can be a good challenge. In this case I would support the decision to build fresh and merge into one new cluster. This will allow you to build new dial plans, new UCCX integration, and move site by site or by application. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Ashwani Rmailto:ashw...@ranpise.com Sent: 12/18/2014 8:39 AM To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.netmailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: [cisco-voip] Consolidate two separate UCCX cluster and migrate to 9.x Team, I have a customer who has two separate UCCX HA cluster with their respective CUCM cluster (merging two companies). They would like to merge both CUCM and UCCX cluster to one cluster and upgrade them to 9.x. They are running CUCM version 7.1.3.1-11 and UCCX cluster running 7.0(2) Build254. What is the best way to do this? Can they keep both historical data from UCCX and move them to 9.x ? I know this is not possible but just want to see if anyone has done it before. We have already built new 9.x CUCM and UCCX cluster with new set of IP addresses with blank configurations. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks, Ashwani ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
[cisco-voip] Expressway 8.5 is out
Talking about stuff sneaking out, expressway 8.5 is on CCO. Here is the release notes: http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/expressway/release_note/Cisco-Expressway-Release-Note-X8-5.pdf The Expressway can now work with the Cisco DX Series endpoints, and with the 8800 Series and 7800 Series IP phones. -Nate VanMaren CCIE #7911 ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] Consolidate two separate UCCX cluster and migrate to 9.x
UCCX 10.6 supports CAD and Finesse as ️Co-resident and rumor has it that is the only version that will support this configuration so plan accordingly. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 18, 2014, at 3:17 PM, Josh Warcop j...@warcop.com wrote: First - your target version should be the 10.6 release which is Communications Manager 10.5.2 and CCX 10.6.1. You merging of UCCX should also include going to Finesse and dropping CAD. If you have a non-overlapping dial plan the merging is simple. However if you have to do a lot of dial plan work it can be a good challenge. In this case I would support the decision to build fresh and merge into one new cluster. This will allow you to build new dial plans, new UCCX integration, and move site by site or by application. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Ashwani R Sent: 12/18/2014 8:39 AM To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: [cisco-voip] Consolidate two separate UCCX cluster and migrate to 9.x Team, I have a customer who has two separate UCCX HA cluster with their respective CUCM cluster (merging two companies). They would like to merge both CUCM and UCCX cluster to one cluster and upgrade them to 9.x. They are running CUCM version 7.1.3.1-11 and UCCX cluster running 7.0(2) Build254. What is the best way to do this? Can they keep both historical data from UCCX and move them to 9.x ? I know this is not possible but just want to see if anyone has done it before. We have already built new 9.x CUCM and UCCX cluster with new set of IP addresses with blank configurations. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks, Ashwani ___ 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] Expressway 8.5 is out
I'm trying to understand what you're pointing out. Expressway is an HTTPS proxy so there wouldn't be any LDAP sent over the Internet. So UDS serves that purpose so that off premise clients can search the directory. From what I'm reading this is more of your security setup and nothing wrong particularly with UDS. Are you saying your directory on CUCM is invalid? Direct Access isn't supported and I wouldn't recommend it. There are more clients to consider than endpoints that run Windows. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Lelio Fulgenzimailto:le...@uoguelph.ca Sent: 12/18/2014 6:14 PM To: NateCCIEmailto:natec...@gmail.com Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.netmailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Expressway 8.5 is out I notice contact search is limited to UDS still. I was hoping LDAP would have been enabled. We have scenarios where people don't want their extensions known, so through LDAP we publish public extensions for those people. With UDS, it looks like it reveals this information, especially if you dial via URI. It also seems there are are few limitations when using the expressway solution vs direct access. In all honest, I was hoping to deploy expressway as an on-campus solution as well. We don't have a split view DNS set up, which I'm gathering is what is necessary to deploy Expressway for MRA only for off campus. I'm just starting to read up on this stuff, so I might be off my rocker in some areas. :) Lelio Sent from my iPhone On Dec 18, 2014, at 5:01 PM, NateCCIE natec...@gmail.com wrote: Talking about stuff sneaking out, expressway 8.5 is on CCO. Here is the release notes: http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/expressway/release_note/Cisco-Expressway-Release-Note-X8-5.pdf The Expressway can now work with the Cisco DX Series endpoints, and with the 8800 Series and 7800 Series IP phones. -Nate VanMaren CCIE #7911 ___ 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
Re: [cisco-voip] Consolidate two separate UCCX cluster and migrate to 9.x
The future is Finesse only. Might as well start planning now. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Mikemailto:mik...@msn.com Sent: 12/18/2014 6:23 PM To: Josh Warcopmailto:j...@warcop.com Cc: Ashwani Rmailto:ashw...@ranpise.com; cisco-voip@puck.nether.netmailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Consolidate two separate UCCX cluster and migrate to 9.x UCCX 10.6 supports CAD and Finesse as ️Co-resident and rumor has it that is the only version that will support this configuration so plan accordingly. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 18, 2014, at 3:17 PM, Josh Warcop j...@warcop.com wrote: First - your target version should be the 10.6 release which is Communications Manager 10.5.2 and CCX 10.6.1. You merging of UCCX should also include going to Finesse and dropping CAD. If you have a non-overlapping dial plan the merging is simple. However if you have to do a lot of dial plan work it can be a good challenge. In this case I would support the decision to build fresh and merge into one new cluster. This will allow you to build new dial plans, new UCCX integration, and move site by site or by application. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Ashwani R Sent: 12/18/2014 8:39 AM To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: [cisco-voip] Consolidate two separate UCCX cluster and migrate to 9.x Team, I have a customer who has two separate UCCX HA cluster with their respective CUCM cluster (merging two companies). They would like to merge both CUCM and UCCX cluster to one cluster and upgrade them to 9.x. They are running CUCM version 7.1.3.1-11 and UCCX cluster running 7.0(2) Build254. What is the best way to do this? Can they keep both historical data from UCCX and move them to 9.x ? I know this is not possible but just want to see if anyone has done it before. We have already built new 9.x CUCM and UCCX cluster with new set of IP addresses with blank configurations. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks, Ashwani ___ 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] Expressway 8.5 is out
Another thing I just saw. Split DNS isn't required and generally I dislike split DNS even though it does have its use cases. Using different internal host domains, external domains, and different presence domains is supported. What it comes down to is certificates and if you're going to go full BYOD and put public certificates on everything or use an internal CA for the servers and public certificates only on Expressway edge. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Lelio Fulgenzimailto:le...@uoguelph.ca Sent: 12/18/2014 6:14 PM To: NateCCIEmailto:natec...@gmail.com Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.netmailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Expressway 8.5 is out I notice contact search is limited to UDS still. I was hoping LDAP would have been enabled. We have scenarios where people don't want their extensions known, so through LDAP we publish public extensions for those people. With UDS, it looks like it reveals this information, especially if you dial via URI. It also seems there are are few limitations when using the expressway solution vs direct access. In all honest, I was hoping to deploy expressway as an on-campus solution as well. We don't have a split view DNS set up, which I'm gathering is what is necessary to deploy Expressway for MRA only for off campus. I'm just starting to read up on this stuff, so I might be off my rocker in some areas. :) Lelio Sent from my iPhone On Dec 18, 2014, at 5:01 PM, NateCCIE natec...@gmail.com wrote: Talking about stuff sneaking out, expressway 8.5 is on CCO. Here is the release notes: http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/expressway/release_note/Cisco-Expressway-Release-Note-X8-5.pdf The Expressway can now work with the Cisco DX Series endpoints, and with the 8800 Series and 7800 Series IP phones. -Nate VanMaren CCIE #7911 ___ 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
Re: [cisco-voip] Expressway 8.5 is out
Thanks Josh. Right now we create pseudo-userids in our LDAP directory for just about any directory entry users want, e.g. College of Arts, so they can find the extension easily. This extends to many, many non user based entries. This allows us to have a many to one relationship directory entries to extensions. This is what we use as our public facing telephone directory. Unless there is another directory search option available with jabber (over expressway), it means that only those users that are imported via AD into CUCM will be searchable. In our current deployment, only a subset of LDAP entries are populated into AD. So we wouldn't get the correct results. Question: when it does return results, does it return the telephone number in the user's AD profile? Or does it use the primary extension configured? Sent from my iPhone On Dec 18, 2014, at 6:31 PM, Josh Warcop j...@warcop.com wrote: I'm trying to understand what you're pointing out. Expressway is an HTTPS proxy so there wouldn't be any LDAP sent over the Internet. So UDS serves that purpose so that off premise clients can search the directory. From what I'm reading this is more of your security setup and nothing wrong particularly with UDS. Are you saying your directory on CUCM is invalid? Direct Access isn't supported and I wouldn't recommend it. There are more clients to consider than endpoints that run Windows. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Lelio Fulgenzi Sent: 12/18/2014 6:14 PM To: NateCCIE Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Expressway 8.5 is out I notice contact search is limited to UDS still. I was hoping LDAP would have been enabled. We have scenarios where people don't want their extensions known, so through LDAP we publish public extensions for those people. With UDS, it looks like it reveals this information, especially if you dial via URI. It also seems there are are few limitations when using the expressway solution vs direct access. In all honest, I was hoping to deploy expressway as an on-campus solution as well. We don't have a split view DNS set up, which I'm gathering is what is necessary to deploy Expressway for MRA only for off campus. I'm just starting to read up on this stuff, so I might be off my rocker in some areas. :) Lelio Sent from my iPhone On Dec 18, 2014, at 5:01 PM, NateCCIE natec...@gmail.com wrote: Talking about stuff sneaking out, expressway 8.5 is on CCO. Here is the release notes: http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/expressway/release_note/Cisco-Expressway-Release-Note-X8-5.pdf The Expressway can now work with the Cisco DX Series endpoints, and with the 8800 Series and 7800 Series IP phones. -Nate VanMaren CCIE #7911 ___ 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] Expressway 8.5 is out
Interesting, this is the impression I got when attending a Live session this year. I'll have to spend some more time reading. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 18, 2014, at 7:14 PM, Josh Warcop j...@warcop.com wrote: Another thing I just saw. Split DNS isn't required and generally I dislike split DNS even though it does have its use cases. Using different internal host domains, external domains, and different presence domains is supported. What it comes down to is certificates and if you're going to go full BYOD and put public certificates on everything or use an internal CA for the servers and public certificates only on Expressway edge. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Lelio Fulgenzi Sent: 12/18/2014 6:14 PM To: NateCCIE Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Expressway 8.5 is out I notice contact search is limited to UDS still. I was hoping LDAP would have been enabled. We have scenarios where people don't want their extensions known, so through LDAP we publish public extensions for those people. With UDS, it looks like it reveals this information, especially if you dial via URI. It also seems there are are few limitations when using the expressway solution vs direct access. In all honest, I was hoping to deploy expressway as an on-campus solution as well. We don't have a split view DNS set up, which I'm gathering is what is necessary to deploy Expressway for MRA only for off campus. I'm just starting to read up on this stuff, so I might be off my rocker in some areas. :) Lelio Sent from my iPhone On Dec 18, 2014, at 5:01 PM, NateCCIE natec...@gmail.com wrote: Talking about stuff sneaking out, expressway 8.5 is on CCO. Here is the release notes: http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/expressway/release_note/Cisco-Expressway-Release-Note-X8-5.pdf The Expressway can now work with the Cisco DX Series endpoints, and with the 8800 Series and 7800 Series IP phones. -Nate VanMaren CCIE #7911 ___ 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] Consolidate two separate UCCX cluster and migrate to 9.x
CAD and Finesse can't be active at the same time unless you are on version 10.6 Sent from my iPhone On Dec 18, 2014, at 9:02 PM, Kevin Przybylowski kev...@advancedtsg.com wrote: Do you mean the last version? They’ve been together the last few revisions. From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mike Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 6:22 PM To: Josh Warcop Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Consolidate two separate UCCX cluster and migrate to 9.x UCCX 10.6 supports CAD and Finesse as ️Co-resident and rumor has it that is the only version that will support this configuration so plan accordingly. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 18, 2014, at 3:17 PM, Josh Warcop j...@warcop.com wrote: First - your target version should be the 10.6 release which is Communications Manager 10.5.2 and CCX 10.6.1. You merging of UCCX should also include going to Finesse and dropping CAD. If you have a non-overlapping dial plan the merging is simple. However if you have to do a lot of dial plan work it can be a good challenge. In this case I would support the decision to build fresh and merge into one new cluster. This will allow you to build new dial plans, new UCCX integration, and move site by site or by application. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Ashwani R Sent: 12/18/2014 8:39 AM To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: [cisco-voip] Consolidate two separate UCCX cluster and migrate to 9.x Team, I have a customer who has two separate UCCX HA cluster with their respective CUCM cluster (merging two companies). They would like to merge both CUCM and UCCX cluster to one cluster and upgrade them to 9.x. They are running CUCM version 7.1.3.1-11 and UCCX cluster running 7.0(2) Build254. What is the best way to do this? Can they keep both historical data from UCCX and move them to 9.x ? I know this is not possible but just want to see if anyone has done it before. We have already built new 9.x CUCM and UCCX cluster with new set of IP addresses with blank configurations. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks, Ashwani ___ 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] Consolidate two separate UCCX cluster and migrate to 9.x
They have both existed since 10 but you were stuck with one or the other, with 10.6 you will be allowed to have both in production, there is a white paper coming with details. Matthew G. Loraditch - CCNP-V, CCNA-RS, CCDA Network Engineer We understand and solve your technology challengers so you can sell and service cars. 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 [cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] on behalf of Kevin Przybylowski [kev...@advancedtsg.com] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 8:02 PM To: Mike; Josh Warcop Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Consolidate two separate UCCX cluster and migrate to 9.x Do you mean the last version? They’ve been together the last few revisions. From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mike Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 6:22 PM To: Josh Warcop Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Consolidate two separate UCCX cluster and migrate to 9.x UCCX 10.6 supports CAD and Finesse as ️Co-resident and rumor has it that is the only version that will support this configuration so plan accordingly. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 18, 2014, at 3:17 PM, Josh Warcop j...@warcop.commailto:j...@warcop.com wrote: First - your target version should be the 10.6 release which is Communications Manager 10.5.2 and CCX 10.6.1. You merging of UCCX should also include going to Finesse and dropping CAD. If you have a non-overlapping dial plan the merging is simple. However if you have to do a lot of dial plan work it can be a good challenge. In this case I would support the decision to build fresh and merge into one new cluster. This will allow you to build new dial plans, new UCCX integration, and move site by site or by application. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Ashwani Rmailto:ashw...@ranpise.com Sent: 12/18/2014 8:39 AM To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.netmailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: [cisco-voip] Consolidate two separate UCCX cluster and migrate to 9.x Team, I have a customer who has two separate UCCX HA cluster with their respective CUCM cluster (merging two companies). They would like to merge both CUCM and UCCX cluster to one cluster and upgrade them to 9.x. They are running CUCM version 7.1.3.1-11 and UCCX cluster running 7.0(2) Build254. What is the best way to do this? Can they keep both historical data from UCCX and move them to 9.x ? I know this is not possible but just want to see if anyone has done it before. We have already built new 9.x CUCM and UCCX cluster with new set of IP addresses with blank configurations. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks, Ashwani ___ 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
Re: [cisco-voip] Expressway 8.5 is out
That is configurable via the CUCM Ldap Directory configuration. What is returned when searching is not related to the primary extension on the user account. The CUCM LDAP directory configuration allows you to pick from telephoneNumber or ipPhone. You're not limited to connecting only to Active Directory. I would look into bringing in that other LDAP directory source. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Lelio Fulgenzimailto:le...@uoguelph.ca Sent: 12/18/2014 7:49 PM To: Josh Warcopmailto:j...@warcop.com Cc: NateCCIEmailto:natec...@gmail.com; cisco-voip@puck.nether.netmailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Expressway 8.5 is out Thanks Josh. Right now we create pseudo-userids in our LDAP directory for just about any directory entry users want, e.g. College of Arts, so they can find the extension easily. This extends to many, many non user based entries. This allows us to have a many to one relationship directory entries to extensions. This is what we use as our public facing telephone directory. Unless there is another directory search option available with jabber (over expressway), it means that only those users that are imported via AD into CUCM will be searchable. In our current deployment, only a subset of LDAP entries are populated into AD. So we wouldn't get the correct results. Question: when it does return results, does it return the telephone number in the user's AD profile? Or does it use the primary extension configured? Sent from my iPhone On Dec 18, 2014, at 6:31 PM, Josh Warcop j...@warcop.com wrote: I'm trying to understand what you're pointing out. Expressway is an HTTPS proxy so there wouldn't be any LDAP sent over the Internet. So UDS serves that purpose so that off premise clients can search the directory. From what I'm reading this is more of your security setup and nothing wrong particularly with UDS. Are you saying your directory on CUCM is invalid? Direct Access isn't supported and I wouldn't recommend it. There are more clients to consider than endpoints that run Windows. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Lelio Fulgenzi Sent: 12/18/2014 6:14 PM To: NateCCIE Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Expressway 8.5 is out I notice contact search is limited to UDS still. I was hoping LDAP would have been enabled. We have scenarios where people don't want their extensions known, so through LDAP we publish public extensions for those people. With UDS, it looks like it reveals this information, especially if you dial via URI. It also seems there are are few limitations when using the expressway solution vs direct access. In all honest, I was hoping to deploy expressway as an on-campus solution as well. We don't have a split view DNS set up, which I'm gathering is what is necessary to deploy Expressway for MRA only for off campus. I'm just starting to read up on this stuff, so I might be off my rocker in some areas. :) Lelio Sent from my iPhone On Dec 18, 2014, at 5:01 PM, NateCCIE natec...@gmail.com wrote: Talking about stuff sneaking out, expressway 8.5 is on CCO. Here is the release notes: http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/expressway/release_note/Cisco-Expressway-Release-Note-X8-5.pdf The Expressway can now work with the Cisco DX Series endpoints, and with the 8800 Series and 7800 Series IP phones. -Nate VanMaren CCIE #7911 ___ 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] Consolidate two separate UCCX cluster and migrate to 9.x
That’s great, will help get people off CAD and into Finesse if you can easily show them in their own environment. You’d think they would put this in the release notes as it’s a pretty big deal in the CCX world. From: NateCCIE [mailto:natec...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 8:14 PM To: Charles Goldsmith Cc: Kevin Przybylowski; Mike; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Consolidate two separate UCCX cluster and migrate to 9.x 10.6 is the first last and only version that allows both to be run on the same server. Sent from my iPhone +1 801 718 2308 On Dec 18, 2014, at 6:05 PM, Charles Goldsmith wo...@justfamily.orgmailto:wo...@justfamily.org wrote: Kevin, not supported to run them both at the same time, unless 10.6 has indeed changed that, I haven't perused the docs yet. On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Kevin Przybylowski kev...@advancedtsg.commailto:kev...@advancedtsg.com wrote: Do you mean the last version? They’ve been together the last few revisions. From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.netmailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mike Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 6:22 PM To: Josh Warcop Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.netmailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Consolidate two separate UCCX cluster and migrate to 9.x UCCX 10.6 supports CAD and Finesse as ️Co-resident and rumor has it that is the only version that will support this configuration so plan accordingly. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 18, 2014, at 3:17 PM, Josh Warcop j...@warcop.commailto:j...@warcop.com wrote: First - your target version should be the 10.6 release which is Communications Manager 10.5.2 and CCX 10.6.1. You merging of UCCX should also include going to Finesse and dropping CAD. If you have a non-overlapping dial plan the merging is simple. However if you have to do a lot of dial plan work it can be a good challenge. In this case I would support the decision to build fresh and merge into one new cluster. This will allow you to build new dial plans, new UCCX integration, and move site by site or by application. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Ashwani Rmailto:ashw...@ranpise.com Sent: 12/18/2014 8:39 AM To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.netmailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: [cisco-voip] Consolidate two separate UCCX cluster and migrate to 9.x Team, I have a customer who has two separate UCCX HA cluster with their respective CUCM cluster (merging two companies). They would like to merge both CUCM and UCCX cluster to one cluster and upgrade them to 9.x. They are running CUCM version 7.1.3.1-11 and UCCX cluster running 7.0(2) Build254. What is the best way to do this? Can they keep both historical data from UCCX and move them to 9.x ? I know this is not possible but just want to see if anyone has done it before. We have already built new 9.x CUCM and UCCX cluster with new set of IP addresses with blank configurations. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks, Ashwani ___ 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.netmailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip ___ 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
Re: [cisco-voip] Expressway 8.5 is out
It seems UDS isn’t that great when pictures are in AD, for user info, it should be the same? From: Josh Warcop [mailto:j...@warcop.com] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 4:30 PM To: Lelio Fulgenzi; NateCCIE Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] Expressway 8.5 is out I'm trying to understand what you're pointing out. Expressway is an HTTPS proxy so there wouldn't be any LDAP sent over the Internet. So UDS serves that purpose so that off premise clients can search the directory. From what I'm reading this is more of your security setup and nothing wrong particularly with UDS. Are you saying your directory on CUCM is invalid? Direct Access isn't supported and I wouldn't recommend it. There are more clients to consider than endpoints that run Windows. Sent from my Windows Phone _ From: Lelio Fulgenzi mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca Sent: 12/18/2014 6:14 PM To: NateCCIE mailto:natec...@gmail.com Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Expressway 8.5 is out I notice contact search is limited to UDS still. I was hoping LDAP would have been enabled. We have scenarios where people don't want their extensions known, so through LDAP we publish public extensions for those people. With UDS, it looks like it reveals this information, especially if you dial via URI. It also seems there are are few limitations when using the expressway solution vs direct access. In all honest, I was hoping to deploy expressway as an on-campus solution as well. We don't have a split view DNS set up, which I'm gathering is what is necessary to deploy Expressway for MRA only for off campus. I'm just starting to read up on this stuff, so I might be off my rocker in some areas. :) Lelio Sent from my iPhone On Dec 18, 2014, at 5:01 PM, NateCCIE natec...@gmail.com mailto:natec...@gmail.com wrote: Talking about stuff sneaking out, expressway 8.5 is on CCO. Here is the release notes: http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/expressway/release_note/Cisco-Expressway-Release-Note-X8-5.pdf The Expressway can now work with the Cisco DX Series endpoints, and with the 8800 Series and 7800 Series IP phones. -Nate VanMaren CCIE #7911 ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net mailto: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] Expressway 8.5 is out
That's good news. That will be a good start. I'm not sure about moving from to AD to LDAP as our source. There are other issues there, namely LDAP version compatibility. I'll have to see about convincing the AD team to import the vanity accounts into the domain. Even if they import them into a hidden container, I should be able to create another import config to bring those in. Another question if you don't mind. With URI dialing, which extension does it use? Sent from my iPhone On Dec 18, 2014, at 8:14 PM, Josh Warcop j...@warcop.com wrote: That is configurable via the CUCM Ldap Directory configuration. What is returned when searching is not related to the primary extension on the user account. The CUCM LDAP directory configuration allows you to pick from telephoneNumber or ipPhone. You're not limited to connecting only to Active Directory. I would look into bringing in that other LDAP directory source. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Lelio Fulgenzi Sent: 12/18/2014 7:49 PM To: Josh Warcop Cc: NateCCIE; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Expressway 8.5 is out Thanks Josh. Right now we create pseudo-userids in our LDAP directory for just about any directory entry users want, e.g. College of Arts, so they can find the extension easily. This extends to many, many non user based entries. This allows us to have a many to one relationship directory entries to extensions. This is what we use as our public facing telephone directory. Unless there is another directory search option available with jabber (over expressway), it means that only those users that are imported via AD into CUCM will be searchable. In our current deployment, only a subset of LDAP entries are populated into AD. So we wouldn't get the correct results. Question: when it does return results, does it return the telephone number in the user's AD profile? Or does it use the primary extension configured? Sent from my iPhone On Dec 18, 2014, at 6:31 PM, Josh Warcop j...@warcop.com wrote: I'm trying to understand what you're pointing out. Expressway is an HTTPS proxy so there wouldn't be any LDAP sent over the Internet. So UDS serves that purpose so that off premise clients can search the directory. From what I'm reading this is more of your security setup and nothing wrong particularly with UDS. Are you saying your directory on CUCM is invalid? Direct Access isn't supported and I wouldn't recommend it. There are more clients to consider than endpoints that run Windows. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Lelio Fulgenzi Sent: 12/18/2014 6:14 PM To: NateCCIE Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Expressway 8.5 is out I notice contact search is limited to UDS still. I was hoping LDAP would have been enabled. We have scenarios where people don't want their extensions known, so through LDAP we publish public extensions for those people. With UDS, it looks like it reveals this information, especially if you dial via URI. It also seems there are are few limitations when using the expressway solution vs direct access. In all honest, I was hoping to deploy expressway as an on-campus solution as well. We don't have a split view DNS set up, which I'm gathering is what is necessary to deploy Expressway for MRA only for off campus. I'm just starting to read up on this stuff, so I might be off my rocker in some areas. :) Lelio Sent from my iPhone On Dec 18, 2014, at 5:01 PM, NateCCIE natec...@gmail.com wrote: Talking about stuff sneaking out, expressway 8.5 is on CCO. Here is the release notes: http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/expressway/release_note/Cisco-Expressway-Release-Note-X8-5.pdf The Expressway can now work with the Cisco DX Series endpoints, and with the 8800 Series and 7800 Series IP phones. -Nate VanMaren CCIE #7911 ___ 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] Consolidate two separate UCCX cluster and migrate to 9.x
Wait and see, probably after the holidays Matthew G. Loraditch - CCNP-V, CCNA-RS, CCDA Network Engineer We understand and solve your technology challengers so you can sell and service cars. 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 [cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] on behalf of Kevin Przybylowski [kev...@advancedtsg.com] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 8:24 PM To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Consolidate two separate UCCX cluster and migrate to 9.x Yep, I don’t see anything that supports the concurrent use of them in 10.6 either. From: Charles Goldsmith [mailto:wo...@justfamily.org] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 8:17 PM To: Kevin Przybylowski Cc: NateCCIE; Mike; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Consolidate two separate UCCX cluster and migrate to 9.x From the 10.6 docs: Unified CCX does not support concurrent use of Cisco Finesse Desktop and Cisco Agent or Supervisor Desktop http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cust_contact/contact_center/crs/express_10_6/design/guide/UCCX_BK_CBB99111_00_cisco-unified-contact-center-express/UCCX_BK_CBB99111_00_cisco-unified-contact-center-express_chapter_011.html#UCCX_CN_D10F6AEF_00 Thought it was too good to be true, it would be handy for migrating customers over to Finesse On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Kevin Przybylowski kev...@advancedtsg.commailto:kev...@advancedtsg.com wrote: That’s great, will help get people off CAD and into Finesse if you can easily show them in their own environment. You’d think they would put this in the release notes as it’s a pretty big deal in the CCX world. From: NateCCIE [mailto:natec...@gmail.commailto:natec...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 8:14 PM To: Charles Goldsmith Cc: Kevin Przybylowski; Mike; cisco-voip@puck.nether.netmailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Consolidate two separate UCCX cluster and migrate to 9.x 10.6 is the first last and only version that allows both to be run on the same server. Sent from my iPhone +1 801 718 2308tel:%2B1%20801%20718%202308 On Dec 18, 2014, at 6:05 PM, Charles Goldsmith wo...@justfamily.orgmailto:wo...@justfamily.org wrote: Kevin, not supported to run them both at the same time, unless 10.6 has indeed changed that, I haven't perused the docs yet. On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Kevin Przybylowski kev...@advancedtsg.commailto:kev...@advancedtsg.com wrote: Do you mean the last version? They’ve been together the last few revisions. From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.netmailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mike Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 6:22 PM To: Josh Warcop Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.netmailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Consolidate two separate UCCX cluster and migrate to 9.x UCCX 10.6 supports CAD and Finesse as ️Co-resident and rumor has it that is the only version that will support this configuration so plan accordingly. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 18, 2014, at 3:17 PM, Josh Warcop j...@warcop.commailto:j...@warcop.com wrote: First - your target version should be the 10.6 release which is Communications Manager 10.5.2 and CCX 10.6.1. You merging of UCCX should also include going to Finesse and dropping CAD. If you have a non-overlapping dial plan the merging is simple. However if you have to do a lot of dial plan work it can be a good challenge. In this case I would support the decision to build fresh and merge into one new cluster. This will allow you to build new dial plans, new UCCX integration, and move site by site or by application. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Ashwani Rmailto:ashw...@ranpise.com Sent: 12/18/2014 8:39 AM To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.netmailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: [cisco-voip] Consolidate two separate UCCX cluster and migrate to 9.x Team, I have a customer who has two separate UCCX HA cluster with their respective CUCM cluster (merging two companies). They would like to merge both CUCM and UCCX cluster to one cluster and upgrade them to 9.x. They are running CUCM version 7.1.3.1-11 and UCCX cluster running 7.0(2) Build254. What is the best way to do this? Can they keep both historical data from UCCX and move them to 9.x ? I know this is not possible but just want to see if anyone has done it before. We have already built new 9.x CUCM and UCCX cluster with new set of IP addresses with blank configurations. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks, Ashwani ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.netmailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] Consolidate two separate UCCX cluster and migrate to 9.x
Hello, The support for concurrent use of CAD and Finesse for UCCX is expected to be announced in January (in all likelihood). Our internal testing has completed, but we are waiting to tie up a few loose ends. Regards, Abhiram Kramadhati CCIE Voice # 40065 Contact Center TAC Cisco Systems From: Matthew Loraditch mloradi...@heliontechnologies.commailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com Date: Friday, 19 December 2014 7:22 am To: Kevin Przybylowski kev...@advancedtsg.commailto:kev...@advancedtsg.com, cisco-voip@puck.nether.netmailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net cisco-voip@puck.nether.netmailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Consolidate two separate UCCX cluster and migrate to 9.x Wait and see, probably after the holidays Matthew G. Loraditch - CCNP-V, CCNA-RS, CCDA Network Engineer We understand and solve your technology challengers so you can sell and service cars. 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 [cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.netmailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] on behalf of Kevin Przybylowski [kev...@advancedtsg.commailto:kev...@advancedtsg.com] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 8:24 PM To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.netmailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Consolidate two separate UCCX cluster and migrate to 9.x Yep, I don’t see anything that supports the concurrent use of them in 10.6 either. From: Charles Goldsmith [mailto:wo...@justfamily.org] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 8:17 PM To: Kevin Przybylowski Cc: NateCCIE; Mike; cisco-voip@puck.nether.netmailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Consolidate two separate UCCX cluster and migrate to 9.x From the 10.6 docs: Unified CCX does not support concurrent use of Cisco Finesse Desktop and Cisco Agent or Supervisor Desktop http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cust_contact/contact_center/crs/express_10_6/design/guide/UCCX_BK_CBB99111_00_cisco-unified-contact-center-express/UCCX_BK_CBB99111_00_cisco-unified-contact-center-express_chapter_011.html#UCCX_CN_D10F6AEF_00 Thought it was too good to be true, it would be handy for migrating customers over to Finesse On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Kevin Przybylowski kev...@advancedtsg.commailto:kev...@advancedtsg.com wrote: That’s great, will help get people off CAD and into Finesse if you can easily show them in their own environment. You’d think they would put this in the release notes as it’s a pretty big deal in the CCX world. From: NateCCIE [mailto:natec...@gmail.commailto:natec...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 8:14 PM To: Charles Goldsmith Cc: Kevin Przybylowski; Mike; cisco-voip@puck.nether.netmailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Consolidate two separate UCCX cluster and migrate to 9.x 10.6 is the first last and only version that allows both to be run on the same server. Sent from my iPhone +1 801 718 2308tel:%2B1%20801%20718%202308 On Dec 18, 2014, at 6:05 PM, Charles Goldsmith wo...@justfamily.orgmailto:wo...@justfamily.org wrote: Kevin, not supported to run them both at the same time, unless 10.6 has indeed changed that, I haven't perused the docs yet. On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Kevin Przybylowski kev...@advancedtsg.commailto:kev...@advancedtsg.com wrote: Do you mean the last version? They’ve been together the last few revisions. From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.netmailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mike Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 6:22 PM To: Josh Warcop Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.netmailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Consolidate two separate UCCX cluster and migrate to 9.x UCCX 10.6 supports CAD and Finesse as ️Co-resident and rumor has it that is the only version that will support this configuration so plan accordingly. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 18, 2014, at 3:17 PM, Josh Warcop j...@warcop.commailto:j...@warcop.com wrote: First - your target version should be the 10.6 release which is Communications Manager 10.5.2 and CCX 10.6.1. You merging of UCCX should also include going to Finesse and dropping CAD. If you have a non-overlapping dial plan the merging is simple. However if you have to do a lot of dial plan work it can be a good challenge. In this case I would support the decision to build fresh and merge into one new cluster. This will allow you to build new dial plans, new UCCX integration, and move site by site or by application. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Ashwani Rmailto:ashw...@ranpise.com Sent: 12/18/2014 8:39 AM To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.netmailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: [cisco-voip] Consolidate two separate UCCX cluster and migrate
Re: [cisco-voip] Call track
Having lived thru one of these, (albeit 15 years ago), you should also look at your voicemail system. Does your voicemail system allow you forward calls externally, or from a menu? It's an avenue of investigation. On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Dharambir kumar varma dharambi...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Guys, I am using CUCM 7 cluster and with multi VG MGCP at different location. My Telecom provider has given list of unauthorized calls made from us. So where we can investigate in cucm. I collected CDR a nd cucm trace thert are showing some unsuccessful call attempts. Is there any strong methodology to collect all reports -- Regards, Dharambir Kumar ___ 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] Expressway 8.5 is out
URI dialing uses the directory URI which is not the extension. So in my Jabber client I see 'usern...@domain.com' to call someone via directory URI. Again this is generated by the LDAP attribute. You can add additional URIs to the DN but the one in the directory is the one imported via LDAP. Following the rules of SIP URI = SMTP = UPN we map the LDAP attribute 'mail' to Directory URI so everything lines up calling via email address essentially. I have a few vanity URIs that are assigned to the directory number. As long as it isn't a duplicated you can put anything you want. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Lelio Fulgenzimailto:le...@uoguelph.ca Sent: 12/18/2014 8:40 PM To: Josh Warcopmailto:j...@warcop.com Cc: NateCCIEmailto:natec...@gmail.com; cisco-voip@puck.nether.netmailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Expressway 8.5 is out That's good news. That will be a good start. I'm not sure about moving from to AD to LDAP as our source. There are other issues there, namely LDAP version compatibility. I'll have to see about convincing the AD team to import the vanity accounts into the domain. Even if they import them into a hidden container, I should be able to create another import config to bring those in. Another question if you don't mind. With URI dialing, which extension does it use? Sent from my iPhone On Dec 18, 2014, at 8:14 PM, Josh Warcop j...@warcop.com wrote: That is configurable via the CUCM Ldap Directory configuration. What is returned when searching is not related to the primary extension on the user account. The CUCM LDAP directory configuration allows you to pick from telephoneNumber or ipPhone. You're not limited to connecting only to Active Directory. I would look into bringing in that other LDAP directory source. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Lelio Fulgenzi Sent: 12/18/2014 7:49 PM To: Josh Warcop Cc: NateCCIE; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Expressway 8.5 is out Thanks Josh. Right now we create pseudo-userids in our LDAP directory for just about any directory entry users want, e.g. College of Arts, so they can find the extension easily. This extends to many, many non user based entries. This allows us to have a many to one relationship directory entries to extensions. This is what we use as our public facing telephone directory. Unless there is another directory search option available with jabber (over expressway), it means that only those users that are imported via AD into CUCM will be searchable. In our current deployment, only a subset of LDAP entries are populated into AD. So we wouldn't get the correct results. Question: when it does return results, does it return the telephone number in the user's AD profile? Or does it use the primary extension configured? Sent from my iPhone On Dec 18, 2014, at 6:31 PM, Josh Warcop j...@warcop.com wrote: I'm trying to understand what you're pointing out. Expressway is an HTTPS proxy so there wouldn't be any LDAP sent over the Internet. So UDS serves that purpose so that off premise clients can search the directory. From what I'm reading this is more of your security setup and nothing wrong particularly with UDS. Are you saying your directory on CUCM is invalid? Direct Access isn't supported and I wouldn't recommend it. There are more clients to consider than endpoints that run Windows. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Lelio Fulgenzi Sent: 12/18/2014 6:14 PM To: NateCCIE Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Expressway 8.5 is out I notice contact search is limited to UDS still. I was hoping LDAP would have been enabled. We have scenarios where people don't want their extensions known, so through LDAP we publish public extensions for those people. With UDS, it looks like it reveals this information, especially if you dial via URI. It also seems there are are few limitations when using the expressway solution vs direct access. In all honest, I was hoping to deploy expressway as an on-campus solution as well. We don't have a split view DNS set up, which I'm gathering is what is necessary to deploy Expressway for MRA only for off campus. I'm just starting to read up on this stuff, so I might be off my rocker in some areas. :) Lelio Sent from my iPhone On Dec 18, 2014, at 5:01 PM, NateCCIE natec...@gmail.com wrote: Talking about stuff sneaking out, expressway 8.5 is on CCO. Here is the release notes: http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/expressway/release_note/Cisco-Expressway-Release-Note-X8-5.pdf The Expressway can now work with the Cisco DX Series endpoints, and with the 8800 Series and 7800 Series IP phones. -Nate VanMaren CCIE #7911 ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Re: [cisco-voip] Expressway 8.5 is out
Ok. Thanks. I'll have to try and sort through that as I get further into my readings. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 18, 2014, at 10:18 PM, Josh Warcop j...@warcop.com wrote: URI dialing uses the directory URI which is not the extension. So in my Jabber client I see 'usern...@domain.com' to call someone via directory URI. Again this is generated by the LDAP attribute. You can add additional URIs to the DN but the one in the directory is the one imported via LDAP. Following the rules of SIP URI = SMTP = UPN we map the LDAP attribute 'mail' to Directory URI so everything lines up calling via email address essentially. I have a few vanity URIs that are assigned to the directory number. As long as it isn't a duplicated you can put anything you want. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Lelio Fulgenzi Sent: 12/18/2014 8:40 PM To: Josh Warcop Cc: NateCCIE; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Expressway 8.5 is out That's good news. That will be a good start. I'm not sure about moving from to AD to LDAP as our source. There are other issues there, namely LDAP version compatibility. I'll have to see about convincing the AD team to import the vanity accounts into the domain. Even if they import them into a hidden container, I should be able to create another import config to bring those in. Another question if you don't mind. With URI dialing, which extension does it use? Sent from my iPhone On Dec 18, 2014, at 8:14 PM, Josh Warcop j...@warcop.com wrote: That is configurable via the CUCM Ldap Directory configuration. What is returned when searching is not related to the primary extension on the user account. The CUCM LDAP directory configuration allows you to pick from telephoneNumber or ipPhone. You're not limited to connecting only to Active Directory. I would look into bringing in that other LDAP directory source. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Lelio Fulgenzi Sent: 12/18/2014 7:49 PM To: Josh Warcop Cc: NateCCIE; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Expressway 8.5 is out Thanks Josh. Right now we create pseudo-userids in our LDAP directory for just about any directory entry users want, e.g. College of Arts, so they can find the extension easily. This extends to many, many non user based entries. This allows us to have a many to one relationship directory entries to extensions. This is what we use as our public facing telephone directory. Unless there is another directory search option available with jabber (over expressway), it means that only those users that are imported via AD into CUCM will be searchable. In our current deployment, only a subset of LDAP entries are populated into AD. So we wouldn't get the correct results. Question: when it does return results, does it return the telephone number in the user's AD profile? Or does it use the primary extension configured? Sent from my iPhone On Dec 18, 2014, at 6:31 PM, Josh Warcop j...@warcop.com wrote: I'm trying to understand what you're pointing out. Expressway is an HTTPS proxy so there wouldn't be any LDAP sent over the Internet. So UDS serves that purpose so that off premise clients can search the directory. From what I'm reading this is more of your security setup and nothing wrong particularly with UDS. Are you saying your directory on CUCM is invalid? Direct Access isn't supported and I wouldn't recommend it. There are more clients to consider than endpoints that run Windows. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Lelio Fulgenzi Sent: 12/18/2014 6:14 PM To: NateCCIE Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Expressway 8.5 is out I notice contact search is limited to UDS still. I was hoping LDAP would have been enabled. We have scenarios where people don't want their extensions known, so through LDAP we publish public extensions for those people. With UDS, it looks like it reveals this information, especially if you dial via URI. It also seems there are are few limitations when using the expressway solution vs direct access. In all honest, I was hoping to deploy expressway as an on-campus solution as well. We don't have a split view DNS set up, which I'm gathering is what is necessary to deploy Expressway for MRA only for off campus. I'm just starting to read up on this stuff, so I might be off my rocker in some areas. :) Lelio Sent from my iPhone On Dec 18, 2014, at 5:01 PM, NateCCIE natec...@gmail.com wrote: Talking about stuff sneaking out, expressway 8.5 is on CCO. Here is the release notes: http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/expressway/release_note/Cisco-Expressway-Release-Note-X8-5.pdf The Expressway can now work with the Cisco DX Series endpoints, and with the 8800 Series and 7800 Series IP phones. -Nate VanMaren CCIE #7911
