Re: [cisco-voip] ITL File regeneration question

2017-11-21 Thread ROZA, Ariel 
I just made a side to side compare of the old itl vs. the new itl and the only 
difference in the signature field:

Old ITL:
12SIGNATURE256
42  78  1c  54  ff  6e  d3  aa
11  a2  1e  7a  92  73  fd  cd
7d  18  4e  10  c7  ee  c6  44
21  d2  99  29  79  56  3e  6
4b  74  d1  7a  ad  dd  7c  49
38  ed  33  9d  f6  a5  c1  9d
7a  b4  aa  77  e1  5f  2d  c5
32  f6  40  82  a5  6c  14  2b
ba  c8  38  4e  ba  f8  92  fe
3  d2  57  11  79  33  37  35
9c  4e  24  db  b8  17  3d  b7
84  ef  21  18  e5  2c  32  d0
e  90  fa  d7  98  6a  a6  f2
a6  3c  1a  64  85  49  30  c0
82  0  c5  4e  73  80  cf  c8
76  d4  65  b9  9d  6d  82  bc
c  b4  f9  27  8b  ad  37  3a
ec  3d  af  d2  3d  37  80  21
81  80  b9  89  f6  d  10  51
65  9d  52  1  f4  13  95  15
1  9f  b5  8f  96  19  56  27
af  b0  ba  49  95  44  b5  da
f8  85  a5  4  ed  53  d7  53
49  8a  1a  f0  19  e3  69  37
42  2a  40  94  5  cb  70  b4
77  31  60  6d  1b  94  45  b5
df  7  bb  3a  cb  c2  53  9c
d1  5  e2  33  b6  af  ce  f7
81  d2  43  84  68  19  aa  32
33  c  7f  4a  45  42  b6  a6
ed  c9  90  1a  5e  83  92  4d
1d  41  5d  10  c5  dd  3b  34

Versus

New ITL:
12SIGNATURE256
92  a0  c4  85  4f  1f  5f  11
f  41  1a  2f  b9  2b  2d  fd
a7  e0  6a  f8  32  8  bc  31
6e  40  9a  7a  c4  74  23  af
49  26  34  5  2c  8b  81  e0
82  57  8b  f7  9c  57  63  d8
2d  77  e2  eb  f6  b8  bb  84
d6  2  92  bf  fa  5c  5  71
8  e4  b2  d2  cf  32  2a  ac
f4  fa  ac  fd  74  7  67  ff
76  1b  13  9b  82  a7  39  b7
c6  76  a3  6d  54  a8  ed  3f
18  ae  e9  8e  8d  f5  5b  c4
d2  2f  e1  29  ac  24  89  40
c8  ae  db  a3  3b  83  a8  33
44  21  fb  b9  54  fe  f2  29
b1  dc  9b  aa  7e  59  98  b4
54  6b  f9  38  dd  e7  fc  a7
93  fc  86  6d  ea  c1  c6  33
8b  91  63  9a  d  1d  18  a6
f0  51  9e  96  3  f  68  13
7e  ef  ba  ba  e2  9  59  d1
31  2a  1e  71  65  a8  ea  d2
8  eb  16  5  76  8c  b1  73
d7  f7  ba  21  c6  cd  38  46
2e  9d  eb  50  18  8f  b5  dc
af  a8  57  e9  6f  13  3a  c3
96  bd  c4  58  56  6  5b  f7
f9  85  41  b1  f4  c3  34  59
d1  86  ed  82  bc  e0  fd  61
7  4b  ca  bd  47  81  2c  22
d2  a1  4a  29  c9  aa  3a  0

The rest is identical.

De: bmead...@gmail.com [mailto:bmead...@gmail.com] En nombre de Brian Meade
Enviado el: martes, 21 de noviembre de 2017 05:32 p.m.
Para: ROZA, Ariel 
CC: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Asunto: Re: [cisco-voip] ITL File regeneration question

TFTP Restart will regenerate the ITL but it shouldn't actually change the 
contents if there wasn't any certificate/hostname changes.

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 3:28 PM, ROZA, Ariel 
> wrote:
Hi, people!

A quick question for which I can´t find a clear answer (I can infer it, but I 
need to be certain):

Is the ITL file regenerated only when an action triggers it, or it is also 
regenerated when restarting the TFTP?

So far, I know that the ITL is regenerated when there´s an IP or hostname 
change, or a certificate is regenerated/updated/deleted, but… does it change 
when I restart the TFTP or should it remain static?

i.e.

I am troubleshooting an install I am not familiar with. And I ran a “show ilt” 
and it showed me this timestamp:

The ITL File was last modified on Mon Oct 30 16:55:23 PET 2017

Then, I restarted the TFTP service and see this timestamp:

The ITL File was last modified on Tue Nov 21 14:07:04 PET 2017

Does that mean that between those dates something related to the certificates 
has changed or is it just the TFTP restart that does it?
I compared the ITL file before and after and seems similar. Also all the certs 
are valid and not one looks regenerated or replaced in recent times.


Regards,

Ariel.



___
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] ITL File regeneration question

2017-11-21 Thread Brian Meade 
TFTP Restart will regenerate the ITL but it shouldn't actually change the
contents if there wasn't any certificate/hostname changes.

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 3:28 PM, ROZA, Ariel 
wrote:

> Hi, people!
>
>
>
> A quick question for which I can´t find a clear answer (I can infer it,
> but I need to be certain):
>
>
>
> Is the ITL file regenerated only when an action triggers it, or it is also
> regenerated when restarting the TFTP?
>
>
>
> So far, I know that the ITL is regenerated when there´s an IP or hostname
> change, or a certificate is regenerated/updated/deleted, but… does it
> change when I restart the TFTP or should it remain static?
>
>
>
> i.e.
>
>
>
> I am troubleshooting an install I am not familiar with. And I ran a “show
> ilt” and it showed me this timestamp:
>
> The ITL File was last modified on Mon Oct 30 16:55:23 PET 2017
>
>
>
> Then, I restarted the TFTP service and see this timestamp:
>
>
>
> The ITL File was last modified on Tue Nov 21 14:07:04 PET 2017
>
>
>
> Does that mean that between those dates something related to the
> certificates has changed or is it just the TFTP restart that does it?
>
> I compared the ITL file before and after and seems similar. Also all the
> certs are valid and not one looks regenerated or replaced in recent times.
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Ariel.
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] ITL File regeneration question

2017-11-21 Thread ROZA, Ariel 
Hi, people!

A quick question for which I can´t find a clear answer (I can infer it, but I 
need to be certain):

Is the ITL file regenerated only when an action triggers it, or it is also 
regenerated when restarting the TFTP?

So far, I know that the ITL is regenerated when there´s an IP or hostname 
change, or a certificate is regenerated/updated/deleted, but... does it change 
when I restart the TFTP or should it remain static?

i.e.

I am troubleshooting an install I am not familiar with. And I ran a "show ilt" 
and it showed me this timestamp:

The ITL File was last modified on Mon Oct 30 16:55:23 PET 2017

Then, I restarted the TFTP service and see this timestamp:

The ITL File was last modified on Tue Nov 21 14:07:04 PET 2017

Does that mean that between those dates something related to the certificates 
has changed or is it just the TFTP restart that does it?
I compared the ITL file before and after and seems similar. Also all the certs 
are valid and not one looks regenerated or replaced in recent times.


Regards,

Ariel.


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

[cisco-voip] Fwd: Prime Collaboration Assurance and Analytics 11.5 MOS unavailable and codec 90 ?

2017-11-21 Thread Dave Wolgast 
The 7841s use a metric called Severely Concealed Seconds Ratio (SCSR). See
this white paper for a description:
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/cloud-systems-management/prime-collaboration/white-paper-c11-735409.html

Basically the percentage of time that the call had poor quality. A SCSR of
>4 (4% of the time, there was "concealment"... lower is better) tends to be
considered unacceptable. The client I have been deploying over the last
several months has had nearly all sites averaging <2 per branch, with many
<1.

If the client has a mixed environment of legacy (79xx, etc...) and newer
phones and uses these metrics, they need to know which phones use which
measure and need to be taught what each score indicates.

Dave Wolgast


On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 10:20 AM Jason Aarons (Americas) <
jason.aar...@dimensiondata.com> wrote:

> I http to the Cisco 7841 phones and notice the MOS LQK scores are not on
> phone.  Is this MOS LQK K-factor stuff not on 7841s?
>
>
>
> Here is example of Cisco 8831 showing MOS LQK scores.
>
> Rcvr Octets 1628640
>
> MOS LQK 4.5000
>
> Avg MOS LQK 4.5000
>
> Min MOS LQK4.5000
>
> Max MOS LQK   4.5000
>
> MOS LQK Version 0.95
>
> Cumulative Conceal Ratio 0.
>
> Interval Conceal Ratio0.
>
> Max Conceal Ratio   0.
>
> Conceal Secs  0
>
> Severely Conceal Secs0
>
-- 
Dave Wolgast
Livonia, NY
585.402.3375 <(585)%20402-3375>
-- 
Dave Wolgast
Livonia, NY
585.402.3375
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

[cisco-voip] Fwd: Prime Collaboration Assurance and Analytics 11.5 MOS unavailable and codec 90 ?

2017-11-21 Thread Dave Wolgast 
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 10:52 AM Dave Wolgast  wrote:

> The 7841s use a metric called Severely Concealed Seconds Ratio (SCSR). See
> this white paper for a description:
> https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/cloud-systems-management/prime-collaboration/white-paper-c11-735409.html
>
> Basically the percentage of time that the call had poor quality. A SCSR of
> >4 (4% of the time, there was "concealment"... lower is better) tends to be
> considered unacceptable.
>

Mea culpa. The table in the linked white paper says that for calls >=20
seconds, 7% should be considered the threshhold for poor quality. 4% was in
internal measure we were using for this client.
-- 
Dave Wolgast
Livonia, NY
585.402.3375 <(585)%20402-3375>
-- 
Dave Wolgast
Livonia, NY
585.402.3375
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] Prime Collaboration Assurance and Analytics 11.5 MOS unavailable and codec 90 ?

2017-11-21 Thread Jason Aarons (Americas) 
Cool. I see G722 is enabled thus Opus is running.

I http to the Cisco 7841 phones and notice the MOS LQK scores are not on phone. 
 Is this MOS LQK K-factor stuff not on 7841s?

Here is example of Cisco 8831 showing MOS LQK scores.
Rcvr Octets 1628640
MOS LQK 4.5000
Avg MOS LQK 4.5000
Min MOS LQK4.5000
Max MOS LQK   4.5000
MOS LQK Version 0.95
Cumulative Conceal Ratio 0.
Interval Conceal Ratio0.
Max Conceal Ratio   0.
Conceal Secs  0
Severely Conceal Secs0

Jason Aarons, CCIEx2 No. 38564
Advanced Technology Consultant
Dimension Data
904-338-3245

From: Nimloth [mailto:niml...@nimloth.pl]
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 9:18 AM
To: Jason Aarons (Americas) 
Cc: cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) 
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Prime Collaboration Assurance and Analytics 11.5 MOS 
unavailable and codec 90 ?


Codec 90 is Opus
Wysłano z BlueMail
W dniu 21.11.2017, o 15:05, użytkownik "Jason Aarons (Americas)" 
> napisał:

I’m checking CAR in CallManager 11.1, but noticing  a lot of calls in Assurance 
show MOS unavailable.


Also calls shows codec G711, or G729, but what is codec 90?


Jason Aarons, CCIEx2 No. 38564
Advanced Technology Consultant
Dimension Data
904-338-3245




This email and all contents are subject to the following disclaimer:
"http://www.dimensiondata.com/emaildisclaimer;



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


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

Re: [cisco-voip] Prime Collaboration Assurance and Analytics 11.5 MOS unavailable and codec 90 ?

2017-11-21 Thread Nimloth 
Codec 90 is Opus

⁣Wysłano z BlueMail ​

W dniu 21.11.2017, 15:05, o 15:05, użytkownik "Jason Aarons (Americas)" 
 napisał:
 >I'm checking CAR in CallManager 11.1, but noticing  a lot of calls in
>Assurance show MOS unavailable.
>
>Also calls shows codec G711, or G729, but what is codec 90?
>
>Jason Aarons, CCIEx2 No. 38564
>Advanced Technology Consultant
>Dimension Data
>904-338-3245
>
>This email and all contents are subject to the following disclaimer:
>
>"http://www.dimensiondata.com/emaildisclaimer;
>
>
>
>
>___
>cisco-voip mailing list
>cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

[cisco-voip] Prime Collaboration Assurance and Analytics 11.5 MOS unavailable and codec 90 ?

2017-11-21 Thread Jason Aarons (Americas) 
   I'm checking CAR in CallManager 11.1, but noticing  a lot of calls in 
Assurance show MOS unavailable.

Also calls shows codec G711, or G729, but what is codec 90?

Jason Aarons, CCIEx2 No. 38564
Advanced Technology Consultant
Dimension Data
904-338-3245

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

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