Re: [cisco-voip] PLM service affecting?

[Lelio Fulgenzi]

Just make sure you do a resync. You’ll want to find out right away whether or 
not all your product instances can talk or not.

---
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Senior Analyst, Network Infrastructure
Computing and Communications Services (CCS)
University of Guelph

519-824-4120 Ext 56354
le...@uoguelph.ca
www.uoguelph.ca/ccs
Room 037, Animal Science and Nutrition Building
Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1

From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Scott 
Voll
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 4:12 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] PLM service affecting?

But if we patch it, will it affect anything when it boots back up?

Scott


On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Matthew Loraditch 
> 
wrote:
PLM can be down for the entire grace period before it affects anything. As long 
as it’s standalone you are good.

From: cisco-voip 
[mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net]
 On Behalf Of Scott Voll
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 4:01 PM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-voip] PLM service affecting?

Quick question.  is PLM patching service affecting?

we just want to patch PLM in the middle of the day and afraid to poke the 
button. ;-)

TIA

Scott


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

Re: [cisco-voip] PLM service affecting?

[Matthew Loraditch]

No.

From: Scott Voll [mailto:svoll.v...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 4:12 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] PLM service affecting?

But if we patch it, will it affect anything when it boots back up?

Scott


On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Matthew Loraditch 
> 
wrote:
PLM can be down for the entire grace period before it affects anything. As long 
as it’s standalone you are good.

From: cisco-voip 
[mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net]
 On Behalf Of Scott Voll
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 4:01 PM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-voip] PLM service affecting?

Quick question.  is PLM patching service affecting?

we just want to patch PLM in the middle of the day and afraid to poke the 
button. ;-)

TIA

Scott


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

Re: [cisco-voip] PLM service affecting?

[Scott Voll]

But if we patch it, will it affect anything when it boots back up?

Scott


On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Matthew Loraditch <
mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:

> PLM can be down for the entire grace period before it affects anything. As
> long as it’s standalone you are good.
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] *On Behalf
> Of *Scott Voll
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 19, 2017 4:01 PM
> *To:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] PLM service affecting?
>
>
>
> Quick question.  is PLM patching service affecting?
>
>
>
> we just want to patch PLM in the middle of the day and afraid to poke the
> button. ;-)
>
>
>
> TIA
>
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] PLM service affecting?

[Lelio Fulgenzi]

+1 for stand alone PLM ☺

---
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Senior Analyst, Network Infrastructure
Computing and Communications Services (CCS)
University of Guelph

519-824-4120 Ext 56354
le...@uoguelph.ca
www.uoguelph.ca/ccs
Room 037, Animal Science and Nutrition Building
Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1

From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of 
Matthew Loraditch
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 4:03 PM
To: Scott Voll; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] PLM service affecting?

PLM can be down for the entire grace period before it affects anything. As long 
as it’s standalone you are good.

From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Scott 
Voll
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 4:01 PM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-voip] PLM service affecting?

Quick question.  is PLM patching service affecting?

we just want to patch PLM in the middle of the day and afraid to poke the 
button. ;-)

TIA

Scott

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

Re: [cisco-voip] PLM service affecting?

[Matthew Loraditch]

PLM can be down for the entire grace period before it affects anything. As long 
as it’s standalone you are good.

From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Scott 
Voll
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 4:01 PM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-voip] PLM service affecting?

Quick question.  is PLM patching service affecting?

we just want to patch PLM in the middle of the day and afraid to poke the 
button. ;-)

TIA

Scott

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

[cisco-voip] PLM service affecting?

[Scott Voll]

Quick question.  is PLM patching service affecting?

we just want to patch PLM in the middle of the day and afraid to poke the
button. ;-)

TIA

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

Re: [cisco-voip] can CUCM config w/ FQDN be avoided any more?

[Dave Goodwin]

You can still have an FQDN in the certificate (which is I believe what the
commercial CA will look for), while in System > Server be defined with IP
addresses. As far as I know, the two are not related. What I'm not really
sure of, and I've never taken the time to fully quantify, is whether there
is a way to populate FQDNs in the certs (e.g. by configuring DNS at install
time) but then after that completely remove all DNS configuration and
dependence upon it. Both for endpoint>server and all server>server
functions.

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:

>
> So, we, like many others, went with IP addresses as hostname in our CUCM
> cluster. Best practice, avoid DNS issues, etc.
>
> But now, certificate authorities will not grant certificates to private IP
> addresses and we need (would like) publicly signed certificates to avoid
> those pesky errors.
>
> I really can't see a way to avoid not using FQDN in CUCM configs any
> longer.
>
> From what I recall, the reliance on DNS was on system/service (re)start-up
> and after that, no real reliance. Not sure if the local tables age out or
> not.
>
> What are people's thoughts and experiences?
>
>
> ---
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Senior Analyst, Network Infrastructure
> Computing and Communications Services (CCS)
> University of Guelph
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext 56354
> le...@uoguelph.ca
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs
> Room 037, Animal Science and Nutrition Building
> Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1
>
>
> ___
> 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] can CUCM config w/ FQDN be avoided any more?

[Derek Andrew]

Same boat here. DNS however has proven quite reliable and in hindsight, we
did not need to fear it.

We are worried that turning on DNS could potentially invalidate the
certificates use to verify phones are talking to the right cluster.

If we did use DNS, I am sure we would have used FQDN to specify our voice
mail servers, out SIP trunks and sundry other services so we would be
dependant on it all the time.

Do let us know how your change goes.

d

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:

>
>
> So, we, like many others, went with IP addresses as hostname in our CUCM
> cluster. Best practice, avoid DNS issues, etc.
>
>
>
> But now, certificate authorities will not grant certificates to private IP
> addresses and we need (would like) publicly signed certificates to avoid
> those pesky errors.
>
>
>
> I really can’t see a way to avoid not using FQDN in CUCM configs any
> longer.
>
>
>
> From what I recall, the reliance on DNS was on system/service (re)start-up
> and after that, no real reliance. Not sure if the local tables age out or
> not.
>
>
>
> What are people’s thoughts and experiences?
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
>
> Senior Analyst, Network Infrastructure
>
> Computing and Communications Services (CCS)
>
> University of Guelph
>
>
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext 56354 <(519)%20824-4120>
>
> le...@uoguelph.ca
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs
>
> Room 037, Animal Science and Nutrition Building
>
> Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1
>
>
>



-- 
Copyright 2017 Derek Andrew (excluding quotations)

+1 306 966 4808
Communication and Network Services
Information and Communications Technology
Infrastructure Services

*University of Saskatchewan*Peterson 120; 54 Innovation Boulevard
Saskatoon,Saskatchewan,Canada. S7N 2V3
Timezone GMT-6

Typed but not read.
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

[cisco-voip] can CUCM config w/ FQDN be avoided any more?

[Lelio Fulgenzi]

So, we, like many others, went with IP addresses as hostname in our CUCM 
cluster. Best practice, avoid DNS issues, etc.

But now, certificate authorities will not grant certificates to private IP 
addresses and we need (would like) publicly signed certificates to avoid those 
pesky errors.

I really can't see a way to avoid not using FQDN in CUCM configs any longer.

>From what I recall, the reliance on DNS was on system/service (re)start-up and 
>after that, no real reliance. Not sure if the local tables age out or not.

What are people's thoughts and experiences?


---
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Senior Analyst, Network Infrastructure
Computing and Communications Services (CCS)
University of Guelph

519-824-4120 Ext 56354
le...@uoguelph.ca
www.uoguelph.ca/ccs
Room 037, Animal Science and Nutrition Building
Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1

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