Re: [cisco-voip] Call flow for device registered to Hybrid Cloud via local PSTN

2019-05-15 Thread Tim Smith
This is another one  At this point they should just call them by numbers.. or maybe follow Ubuntu convention. Something memorable and unique  From: cisco-voip on behalf of Lelio Fulgenzi Date: Thursday, 16 May 2019 at 2:09 pm To: Ryan Huff Cc: "cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" Subject: Re:

Re: [cisco-voip] Call flow for device registered to Hybrid Cloud via local PSTN

2019-05-15 Thread Lelio Fulgenzi
"As part of the integration between BroadCloud Calling and Webex Teams, Cisco is launching the Cisco Calling App. If a user wants to make a call from Webex Teams, they can cross-launch the calling app." https://www.zdnet.com/article/cisco-combines-broadcloud-calling-with-webex-teams/ -sent

Re: [cisco-voip] Call flow for device registered to Hybrid Cloud via local PSTN

2019-05-15 Thread Lelio Fulgenzi
I recall one post I read, where it talked about giving the person the option to “launch a separate calling app” which I’m pretty sure they were referring to the broadsoft client. Is that the WebEx teams calling service then? -sent from mobile device- Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A. | Senior Analyst

Re: [cisco-voip] Call flow for device registered to Hybrid Cloud via local PSTN

2019-05-15 Thread Ryan Huff
Yup, this stuff is soo fluid right now, it’s a contradictory mess . The on-prem registration, IMHO, is rrr from prime time (as you even noted, “preview mode”). I honestly think it’s a bit further out than what the marketing department would have us believe too ;). Hopefully

Re: [cisco-voip] Call flow for device registered to Hybrid Cloud via local PSTN

2019-05-15 Thread Tim Smith
Hi Ryan, Yeah sorry, I realise you guys were talking WebEx Hybrid Call (formally Spark Hybrid). Just pointing out there is some new stuff on horizon. Calling from WebEx Teams via CUCM feature.

Re: [cisco-voip] Call flow for device registered to Hybrid Cloud via local PSTN

2019-05-15 Thread Ryan Huff
This is Webex Hybrid Calling (which was formerly Spark Hybrid calling). Whether you configure for cloud registered codec devices, or Webex Teams clients, both use cases use the same configuration path / scenario to enable PSTN call via CUCM. Sent from my iPhone On May 15, 2019, at 22:08, Tim

Re: [cisco-voip] Call flow for device registered to Hybrid Cloud via local PSTN

2019-05-15 Thread Tim Smith
Hey guys, I think this one has changed a little. We did “Spark hybrid calling” for one customer with the Spark RD devices in CUCM Honestly, the experience was a little confusing. I think the new direction is going to be the WebEx Calling via CUCM (it’s in preview mode still)

Re: [cisco-voip] Call flow for device registered to Hybrid Cloud via local PSTN

2019-05-15 Thread Lelio Fulgenzi
This is god content. Thanks! One thing I’ve enabled for adoption reasons, is people being able to use the extension as the video address for room kits. I know this isn’t the best design plan, but we don’t really have any other naming convention we could use at the moment. I’ll have to look at

Re: [cisco-voip] Call flow for device registered to Hybrid Cloud via local PSTN

2019-05-15 Thread Brian Meade
Be aware that Call Service Connect is being deprecated for anything besides Video Endpoints. If this is for Webex Teams client, they want you to start looking at Unified CM calling in Webex Teams.

Re: [cisco-voip] Call flow for device registered to Hybrid Cloud via local PSTN

2019-05-15 Thread Ryan Huff
Inbound Flow (PSTN user calls user’s DID): GW > CCM > (per userWebex Hybrid CTI Device) > Exp-C > Exp-E > ControlHub > (rings your cloud registered device) Outbound Flow (cloud registered device calls PSTN via CCM or other on-prem device): Cloud registered device (ControlHub) > Exp-E > Exp-C

Re: [cisco-voip] Call flow for device registered to Hybrid Cloud via local PSTN

2019-05-15 Thread Charles Goldsmith
It's only a matter of time that the SCCP phones will not function with the latest features. I realize that the 79x5's just went EOL a couple of years ago, but we've had SIP only phones for at least 8 years now. On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 6:22 PM Lelio Fulgenzi wrote: > Whoa. > > >

Re: [cisco-voip] Call flow for device registered to Hybrid Cloud via local PSTN

2019-05-15 Thread Jonathan Charles
Thanks!... looks like I have some more reading to do... so how does it prevent anyone from sending a pstn number to my expressway? How does it authenticate the Webex devices to pass calls to CUCM for? Customer has enterprise licensing, so they should be able to do whatever they want... Jonathan

Re: [cisco-voip] Call flow for device registered to Hybrid Cloud via local PSTN

2019-05-15 Thread Lelio Fulgenzi
Whoa. Unified CM Device Requirements Hybrid Call Service is supported only with Cisco SIP phones and Cisco Jabber clients that are registered to Unified CM. SCCP phones may encounter problems due to the 48-character limitation on the destination address. -sent from mobile

Re: [cisco-voip] Call flow for device registered to Hybrid Cloud via local PSTN

2019-05-15 Thread Ryan Huff
You’ll need a specific Webex DNS zone and the traversal trunk really just needs to support pre-loaded route headers and SIP parameter preservation (those are the most significant differences over the traversal / neighbor zone you might have setup for B2B). It’s a simple enough configuration,

Re: [cisco-voip] Call flow for device registered to Hybrid Cloud via local PSTN

2019-05-15 Thread Lelio Fulgenzi
Very good question. From what I understand, there’s a special traversal link built and it’s all “built-in” and uses the CSS of the remote destination or something like that. I’ve read absolutely zero docs about this. This is all based on a quick convo I had. I had the same worries and if I

Re: [cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?

2019-05-15 Thread Charles Goldsmith
Agree 100%, but you'd have a hard time proving that's the only thing you changed about that iso if TAC wanted to push it. For my customers, I just don't chance it. On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 4:45 PM Ryan Huff wrote: > The checksum is written to the OS. I’ve heard tell from the old country of > a

Re: [cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?

2019-05-15 Thread Ryan Huff
The checksum is written to the OS. I’ve heard tell from the old country of a TAC agent using it as a way out of an otherwise entitled case. If you inject a boot table from a RedHat image into a Redhat image, there isn’t any functional difference. I would not inject a boot table from a RedHat

Re: [cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?

2019-05-15 Thread Charles Goldsmith
I don't know how true this is, but years ago I was told that when you do an install, that the md5sum of the iso is written out in the install, so that TAC can tell if it's a legit image that is used to do the installation. However, at least once on a TAC supplied iso that I've gotten a failure on

[cisco-voip] Call flow for device registered to Hybrid Cloud via local PSTN

2019-05-15 Thread Jonathan Charles
Enabling Cisco hybrid call and routing calls to the PSTN using local gateway (via Expressway C/E pair). What search rules do we need on the E and C? How do we prevent toll fraud if we have E.164 patterns inbound on our Expressways? Am I being paranoid? Jonathan

Re: [cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?

2019-05-15 Thread Evgeny Izetov
I wonder if TAC also gave up - UltraISO'd it themselves and forgot to add Bootable_ :-) On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 3:46 PM Lelio Fulgenzi wrote: > I remember when it used to as simple as “format /s” > > *-sent from mobile device-* > > > *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst > > Computing and

Re: [cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?

2019-05-15 Thread Lelio Fulgenzi
I remember when it used to as simple as “format /s” -sent from mobile device- Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A. | Senior Analyst Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON | N1G 2W1 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 |

Re: [cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?

2019-05-15 Thread Charles Goldsmith
It's not. And just in case they changed things, I went and downloaded the latest 12.0 and 12.5 of both CUCM and CUC and none of them have the bootable part of the ISO. Simply renaming a file doesn't make it bootable :) On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 1:36 PM Anthony Holloway <

Re: [cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?

2019-05-15 Thread NateCCIE
And use a segmented downloaded like flareget to get it much faster from the special file access site. Sent from my iPhone > On May 15, 2019, at 12:34 PM, Charles Goldsmith wrote: > > I've always opened a TAC case, specified the reason for needing bootable > (rebuilding a cluster usually),

Re: [cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?

2019-05-15 Thread Brian Meade
CUCM 11.5 latest SU's are still not bootable. Even 12.5 is not bootable. You can open the ISO with UltraISO and it will show you if it is bootable regardless of the name. On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 2:36 PM Anthony Holloway < avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote: > That. Can't. Be. True.

Re: [cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?

2019-05-15 Thread Anthony Holloway
That. Can't. Be. True. Right? If so, Brian Meade has been wasting his time with UltraISO. On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 1:26 PM Evgeny Izetov wrote: > That's good to know. Was it 12.x or 11.x? > > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 2:19 PM Haas, Neal > wrote: > >> I had a TAC Call last week, they told me

Re: [cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?

2019-05-15 Thread Charles Goldsmith
I've always opened a TAC case, specified the reason for needing bootable (rebuilding a cluster usually), and they provided it. I've never had an issue getting them, just takes a bit of time. On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 1:16 PM Evgeny Izetov wrote: > Yeah, CUPS has always been bootable..

Re: [cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?

2019-05-15 Thread Evgeny Izetov
That's good to know. Was it 12.x or 11.x? On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 2:19 PM Haas, Neal wrote: > I had a TAC Call last week, they told me to add BOOTABLE to the name (in > front) and that was it. They said all ISO’s are now bootable with the name > change….. > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:*

Re: [cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?

2019-05-15 Thread Evgeny Izetov
Yeah, CUPS has always been bootable.. CUCM/CUC/CER are still not So, what is the proper way to obtaining bootable iso's now? Let's say a CUCM 11.5 SU6 needs to be reinstalled, and there's no bootable because it was upgraded from an earlier SU. PUT does not have bootable SU6 and neither does

Re: [cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?

2019-05-15 Thread Lelio Fulgenzi
I believe it was a Red Hat licensing issue, yes. But I don’t think 11 is CentOS. But – you’re right – should be bootable for CentOS is no similar licensing issue exists. --- Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A. | Senior Analyst Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph Room 037 Animal

Re: [cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?

2019-05-15 Thread Lelio Fulgenzi
Same with CUPS if I’m not mistaken. --- Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A. | Senior Analyst Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON | N1G 2W1 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 | le...@uoguelph.ca

Re: [cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?

2019-05-15 Thread Charles Goldsmith
Plus, UCCX is shipping bootables (filename doesn't reflect it). Description : UCCX 12.0(1) image for fresh install and upgrades. UCSInstall_UCCX_12_0_1_UCOS_12.0.1.1-24.sgn.iso On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 11:04 AM Evgeny Izetov wrote: > Wasn't their excuse with not providing bootables that it

Re: [cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?

2019-05-15 Thread Evgeny Izetov
Wasn't their excuse with not providing bootables that it was based on Red Hat? It's CentOS now, and still a struggle.. On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 11:52 AM Brian Meade wrote: > I've given up on trying to get bootables. I haven't had any issues with > ones made with UltraISO. > > On Wed, May 15,

Re: [cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?

2019-05-15 Thread Brian Meade
I've given up on trying to get bootables. I haven't had any issues with ones made with UltraISO. On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 11:39 AM Lelio Fulgenzi wrote: > > Just wondering what the Put Tool Bootables are at now? We're planning on > upgrading to v11.5.1 SU6 due to the field notice and I'd like

[cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?

2019-05-15 Thread Lelio Fulgenzi
Just wondering what the Put Tool Bootables are at now? We're planning on upgrading to v11.5.1 SU6 due to the field notice and I'd like to have the bootable available. Otherwise it's opening a case with the TAC, etc. Is it just a matter of submit request and check the filename? Lelio ---