date:20190515




"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 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 | 
le...@uoguelph.ca

www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, 
Twitter and Facebook

[University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]

On May 15, 2019, at 11:22 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi 
mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>> wrote:


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
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

www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, 
Twitter and Facebook

[University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]

On May 15, 2019, at 10:39 PM, Ryan Huff 
mailto:ryanh...@outlook.com>> wrote:

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 though, one day, we’ll all have this unified unicorn they’re 
promising... Jeams?... Jams? ... who knows 😂

Tops to you mate!

On May 15, 2019, at 22:31, Tim Smith 
mailto:tim.sm...@enject.com.au>> wrote:

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.
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cloudCollaboration/wbxt/ucmcalling/unified-cm-wbx-teams-deployment-guide/unified-cm-wbx-teams-deployment-guide_chapter_011.html

It looks like this will replace the calling from Teams part of the old Hybrid 
Call (although not on mobile clients yet) – in fact it seems you have to remove 
their old Hybrid config to make them work.

Looks like you’d still need to retain Hybrid Call for cloud registered devices.

There was one specific annoyance with the Hybrid Call from the apps, and I 
can’t find it in my Teams search ☹

Cheers,

Tim


From: Ryan Huff mailto:ryanh...@outlook.com>>
Date: Thursday, 16 May 2019 at 12:14 pm
To: Tim Smith mailto:tim.sm...@enject.com.au>>
Cc: Jonathan Charles mailto:jonv...@gmail.com>>, 
"cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Call flow for device registered to Hybrid Cloud via 
local PSTN

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 Smith 
mailto:tim.sm...@enject.com.au>> wrote:
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)
https://help.webex.com/en-us/n15ylys/Explore-Calling-in-Cisco-Webex-Teams-Unified-CM

It’s not parity with the Hybrid Calling yet. (i.e. I think it’s only desktop)
Either way, I’d check out all the details first.

If you are not already on there, make sure you are on the Fabian bot in WebEx 
teams. (Not sure if it’s partners only)
These hybrid features are really starting to r

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


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
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

www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, 
Twitter and Facebook

[University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]

On May 15, 2019, at 10:39 PM, Ryan Huff 
mailto:ryanh...@outlook.com>> wrote:

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 though, one day, we’ll all have this unified unicorn they’re 
promising... Jeams?... Jams? ... who knows 😂

Tops to you mate!

On May 15, 2019, at 22:31, Tim Smith 
mailto:tim.sm...@enject.com.au>> wrote:

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.
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cloudCollaboration/wbxt/ucmcalling/unified-cm-wbx-teams-deployment-guide/unified-cm-wbx-teams-deployment-guide_chapter_011.html

It looks like this will replace the calling from Teams part of the old Hybrid 
Call (although not on mobile clients yet) – in fact it seems you have to remove 
their old Hybrid config to make them work.

Looks like you’d still need to retain Hybrid Call for cloud registered devices.

There was one specific annoyance with the Hybrid Call from the apps, and I 
can’t find it in my Teams search ☹

Cheers,

Tim


From: Ryan Huff mailto:ryanh...@outlook.com>>
Date: Thursday, 16 May 2019 at 12:14 pm
To: Tim Smith mailto:tim.sm...@enject.com.au>>
Cc: Jonathan Charles mailto:jonv...@gmail.com>>, 
"cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Call flow for device registered to Hybrid Cloud via 
local PSTN

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 Smith 
mailto:tim.sm...@enject.com.au>> wrote:
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)
https://help.webex.com/en-us/n15ylys/Explore-Calling-in-Cisco-Webex-Teams-Unified-CM

It’s not parity with the Hybrid Calling yet. (i.e. I think it’s only desktop)
Either way, I’d check out all the details first.

If you are not already on there, make sure you are on the Fabian bot in WebEx 
teams. (Not sure if it’s partners only)
These hybrid features are really starting to rock and roll now.

Cheers,

Tim

From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
on behalf of Jonathan Charles mailto:jonv...@gmail.com>>
Date: Thursday, 16 May 2019 at 9:30 am
To: Ryan Huff mailto:ryanh...@outlook.com>>
Cc: "cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Call flow for device registered to Hybrid Cloud via 
local PSTN

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



On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 6:16 PM Ryan Huff 
mailto:ryanh...@outlook.com>> w

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

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 though, one day, we’ll all have this unified unicorn they’re 
promising... Jeams?... Jams? ... who knows 😂

Tops to you mate!

On May 15, 2019, at 22:31, Tim Smith 
mailto:tim.sm...@enject.com.au>> wrote:

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.
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cloudCollaboration/wbxt/ucmcalling/unified-cm-wbx-teams-deployment-guide/unified-cm-wbx-teams-deployment-guide_chapter_011.html

It looks like this will replace the calling from Teams part of the old Hybrid 
Call (although not on mobile clients yet) – in fact it seems you have to remove 
their old Hybrid config to make them work.

Looks like you’d still need to retain Hybrid Call for cloud registered devices.

There was one specific annoyance with the Hybrid Call from the apps, and I 
can’t find it in my Teams search ☹

Cheers,

Tim


From: Ryan Huff mailto:ryanh...@outlook.com>>
Date: Thursday, 16 May 2019 at 12:14 pm
To: Tim Smith mailto:tim.sm...@enject.com.au>>
Cc: Jonathan Charles mailto:jonv...@gmail.com>>, 
"cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Call flow for device registered to Hybrid Cloud via 
local PSTN

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 Smith 
mailto:tim.sm...@enject.com.au>> wrote:
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)
https://help.webex.com/en-us/n15ylys/Explore-Calling-in-Cisco-Webex-Teams-Unified-CM

It’s not parity with the Hybrid Calling yet. (i.e. I think it’s only desktop)
Either way, I’d check out all the details first.

If you are not already on there, make sure you are on the Fabian bot in WebEx 
teams. (Not sure if it’s partners only)
These hybrid features are really starting to rock and roll now.

Cheers,

Tim

From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
on behalf of Jonathan Charles mailto:jonv...@gmail.com>>
Date: Thursday, 16 May 2019 at 9:30 am
To: Ryan Huff mailto:ryanh...@outlook.com>>
Cc: "cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Call flow for device registered to Hybrid Cloud via 
local PSTN

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



On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 6:16 PM Ryan Huff 
mailto:ryanh...@outlook.com>> wrote:
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, but there are a few more moving parts than 
what the marketing may lead one to believe. Here is the configuration 
documentation: 
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cloudCollaboration/spark/hybridservices/callservices/cmgt_b_ciscospark-hybrid-call-service-config-guide.html

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.
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cloudCollaboration/wbxt/ucmcalling/unified-cm-wbx-teams-deployment-guide/unified-cm-wbx-teams-deployment-guide_chapter_011.html

It looks like this will replace the calling from Teams part of the old Hybrid 
Call (although not on mobile clients yet) – in fact it seems you have to remove 
their old Hybrid config to make them work.

Looks like you’d still need to retain Hybrid Call for cloud registered devices.

There was one specific annoyance with the Hybrid Call from the apps, and I 
can’t find it in my Teams search ☹

Cheers,

Tim


From: Ryan Huff 
Date: Thursday, 16 May 2019 at 12:14 pm
To: Tim Smith 
Cc: Jonathan Charles , "cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" 

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

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 Smith 
mailto:tim.sm...@enject.com.au>> wrote:
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)
https://help.webex.com/en-us/n15ylys/Explore-Calling-in-Cisco-Webex-Teams-Unified-CM

It’s not parity with the Hybrid Calling yet. (i.e. I think it’s only desktop)
Either way, I’d check out all the details first.

If you are not already on there, make sure you are on the Fabian bot in WebEx 
teams. (Not sure if it’s partners only)
These hybrid features are really starting to rock and roll now.

Cheers,

Tim

From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
on behalf of Jonathan Charles mailto:jonv...@gmail.com>>
Date: Thursday, 16 May 2019 at 9:30 am
To: Ryan Huff mailto:ryanh...@outlook.com>>
Cc: "cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Call flow for device registered to Hybrid Cloud via 
local PSTN

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



On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 6:16 PM Ryan Huff 
mailto:ryanh...@outlook.com>> wrote:
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, but there are a few more moving parts than 
what the marketing may lead one to believe. Here is the configuration 
documentation: 
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cloudCollaboration/spark/hybridservices/callservices/cmgt_b_ciscospark-hybrid-call-service-config-guide.html

Oh and don’t forget to enable MTLS on the edge and also be aware the ControlHub 
now requires CCM 11.5.1SU3 or better (it detects CCM version via call connector 
on Exp-C). It wouldn’t allow you to enable hybrid calling on cloud registered 
devices otherwise.

You can technically still get away using Expressway 8.11.4, but that’ll soon be 
a deprecated version for hybrid calling (you’ll get an alarm about it), so 
might as well go to 12.5.2 and be done with it.

BTW, if you try to upgrade an 8.x Expressway to 12.5.x, you will interact with 
GLO for the 12.x release key (can’t do it from the self service portal because 
the existing 8.x virtual license is already associated to a PAK and GLO has to 
invalidate that relationship first, then hash your new keys to 12.5.x).

Good Luck!

- Ryan

On May 15, 2019, at 18:42, Le

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

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 Smith 
mailto:tim.sm...@enject.com.au>> wrote:

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)
https://help.webex.com/en-us/n15ylys/Explore-Calling-in-Cisco-Webex-Teams-Unified-CM

It’s not parity with the Hybrid Calling yet. (i.e. I think it’s only desktop)
Either way, I’d check out all the details first.

If you are not already on there, make sure you are on the Fabian bot in WebEx 
teams. (Not sure if it’s partners only)
These hybrid features are really starting to rock and roll now.

Cheers,

Tim

From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
on behalf of Jonathan Charles mailto:jonv...@gmail.com>>
Date: Thursday, 16 May 2019 at 9:30 am
To: Ryan Huff mailto:ryanh...@outlook.com>>
Cc: "cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Call flow for device registered to Hybrid Cloud via 
local PSTN

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



On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 6:16 PM Ryan Huff 
mailto:ryanh...@outlook.com>> wrote:
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, but there are a few more moving parts than 
what the marketing may lead one to believe. Here is the configuration 
documentation: 
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cloudCollaboration/spark/hybridservices/callservices/cmgt_b_ciscospark-hybrid-call-service-config-guide.html

Oh and don’t forget to enable MTLS on the edge and also be aware the ControlHub 
now requires CCM 11.5.1SU3 or better (it detects CCM version via call connector 
on Exp-C). It wouldn’t allow you to enable hybrid calling on cloud registered 
devices otherwise.

You can technically still get away using Expressway 8.11.4, but that’ll soon be 
a deprecated version for hybrid calling (you’ll get an alarm about it), so 
might as well go to 12.5.2 and be done with it.

BTW, if you try to upgrade an 8.x Expressway to 12.5.x, you will interact with 
GLO for the 12.x release key (can’t do it from the self service portal because 
the existing 8.x virtual license is already associated to a PAK and GLO has to 
invalidate that relationship first, then hash your new keys to 12.5.x).

Good Luck!

- Ryan

On May 15, 2019, at 18:42, Lelio Fulgenzi 
mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>> wrote:

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 recall correctly, my worries were somewhat 
alleviated.

However, that being said, there is only one template in control hub, so if your 
user needs a different setup on their remote destination (or something like 
that) you need to go make a manual change.

It’s sorta like how there’s only one licensing template in control hub for new 
users. We’re gonna struggle with that. We might have to engage (professional) 
services which make uses of APIs to assign different services for different 
users in webex. But I digress.

-sent from mobile device-


Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A. | Senior Analyst
Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
Room 03

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)
https://help.webex.com/en-us/n15ylys/Explore-Calling-in-Cisco-Webex-Teams-Unified-CM

It’s not parity with the Hybrid Calling yet. (i.e. I think it’s only desktop)
Either way, I’d check out all the details first.

If you are not already on there, make sure you are on the Fabian bot in WebEx 
teams. (Not sure if it’s partners only)
These hybrid features are really starting to rock and roll now.

Cheers,

Tim

From: cisco-voip  on behalf of Jonathan 
Charles 
Date: Thursday, 16 May 2019 at 9:30 am
To: Ryan Huff 
Cc: "cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" 
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Call flow for device registered to Hybrid Cloud via 
local PSTN

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



On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 6:16 PM Ryan Huff 
mailto:ryanh...@outlook.com>> wrote:
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, but there are a few more moving parts than 
what the marketing may lead one to believe. Here is the configuration 
documentation: 
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cloudCollaboration/spark/hybridservices/callservices/cmgt_b_ciscospark-hybrid-call-service-config-guide.html

Oh and don’t forget to enable MTLS on the edge and also be aware the ControlHub 
now requires CCM 11.5.1SU3 or better (it detects CCM version via call connector 
on Exp-C). It wouldn’t allow you to enable hybrid calling on cloud registered 
devices otherwise.

You can technically still get away using Expressway 8.11.4, but that’ll soon be 
a deprecated version for hybrid calling (you’ll get an alarm about it), so 
might as well go to 12.5.2 and be done with it.

BTW, if you try to upgrade an 8.x Expressway to 12.5.x, you will interact with 
GLO for the 12.x release key (can’t do it from the self service portal because 
the existing 8.x virtual license is already associated to a PAK and GLO has to 
invalidate that relationship first, then hash your new keys to 12.5.x).

Good Luck!

- Ryan

On May 15, 2019, at 18:42, Lelio Fulgenzi 
mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>> wrote:

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 recall correctly, my worries were somewhat 
alleviated.

However, that being said, there is only one template in control hub, so if your 
user needs a different setup on their remote destination (or something like 
that) you need to go make a manual change.

It’s sorta like how there’s only one licensing template in control hub for new 
users. We’re gonna struggle with that. We might have to engage (professional) 
services which make uses of APIs to assign different services for different 
users in webex. But I digress.

-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 | 
le...@uoguelph.ca

www.uoguelph.ca/ccs
 | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook

Error! Filename not specified.

On May 15, 2019, at 5:20 PM, Jonathan Charles 
mailto:jonv...@gmail.com>> wrote:
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
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

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

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 your two reject ideas. Right now, we’re doing explicit 
permits.

-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 | 
le...@uoguelph.ca

www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, 
Twitter and Facebook

[University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]

On May 15, 2019, at 7:45 PM, Ryan Huff 
mailto:ryanh...@outlook.com>> wrote:

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 > CCM (interacts with the 
dialplan for onnet/offnet calling).

Basically, it’s a B2B call that gets 15 pieces of flair added to it so it can 
utilize your on-prem gateway for PSTN access. When you go through the 
configuration, One of the steps will lead you to creating CTI devices in 
communications manager which share the users DID (Essentially, and on premise 
representation of the cloud registered device). The inbound flow is a little 
unique as it essentially capitalizes on a bastardized form of SNR to ring the 
cloud device.

As far as security goes, you are mostly at the mercy of traditional call policy 
rules (or more specifically writing search rules for your zones).

I have found the following to be two good "reject" policies that tend not to 
interfere with most deployments (though they could if the internal URIs match 
the policy). Most organizations have Directory URIs that ultimately have been 
inherited from the user's email address or other corporate standardizations 
which these policies tend to avoid and also tend to deny routing to a 
surprising amount of obvious junk (typically, I apply CPL at the edge):


  *   ^[0-9,a-z,A-Z]{0,6}@.*
 *The first 0-6 characters are made up of alphanumerics 0-9 and/or 
upper/lower case letters, “@“ anything
*   Example: 123...@domain.com
*   Example: noa...@domian.com
*   Example: 9...@domain.com

  *   ^[0-9,a-z,A-Z]{0,6}$
 *   The first 0-6 characters are made up of alphanumerics 0-9 and/or 
upper/lower case letter and do not exceed the 6th character
 *   Example: 1000
 *   Example: 
 *   Example: NoAuth
 *

Good Luck!

-Ryan

On May 15, 2019, at 19:30, Jonathan Charles 
mailto:jonv...@gmail.com>> wrote:

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



On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 6:16 PM Ryan Huff 
mailto:ryanh...@outlook.com>> wrote:
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, but there are a few more moving parts than 
what the marketing may lead one to believe. Here is the configuration 
documentation: 
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cloudCollaboration/spark/hybridservices/callservices/cmgt_b_ciscospark-hybrid-call-service-config-guide.html

Oh and don’t forget to enable MTLS on the edge and also be aware the ControlHub 
now requires CCM 11.5.1SU3 or better (it detects CCM version via call connector 
on Exp-C). It wouldn’t allow you to enable hybrid calling on cloud registered 
devices otherwise.

You can technically still get away using Expressway 8.11.4, but that’ll soon be 
a deprecated version for hybrid calling (you’ll get an alarm about it), so 
might as well go to 12.5.2 and be done with it.

BTW, if you try to upgrade an 8.x Expressway to 12.5.x, you will interact with 
GLO for the 12.x release key (can’t do it from the self

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.
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cloudCollaboration/wbxt/ucmcalling/unified-cm-wbx-teams-deployment-guide/unified-cm-wbx-teams-deployment-guide_chapter_01.html


If you need something behind hold/resume for mid-call controls or need
mobile Teams client to work, Cisco is pushing towards having Teams launch
Jabber for any phone links which can be configured as well.

Long-term goal is to have Teams calling function very similar to Jabber
softphone for Desktop and mobile.

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 7:45 PM Ryan Huff  wrote:

> 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 > CCM (interacts with
> the dialplan for onnet/offnet calling).
>
> Basically, it’s a B2B call that gets 15 pieces of flair added to it so it
> can utilize your on-prem gateway for PSTN access. When you go through the
> configuration, One of the steps will lead you to creating CTI devices in
> communications manager which share the users DID (Essentially, and on
> premise representation of the cloud registered device). The inbound flow is
> a little unique as it essentially capitalizes on a bastardized form of SNR
> to ring the cloud device.
>
> As far as security goes, you are mostly at the mercy of traditional call
> policy rules (or more specifically writing search rules for your zones).
>
> I have found the following to be two good "reject" policies that tend not
> to interfere with most deployments (though they could if the internal URIs
> match the policy). Most organizations have Directory URIs that ultimately
> have been inherited from the user's email address or other corporate
> standardizations which these policies tend to avoid and also tend to deny
> routing to a surprising amount of obvious junk (typically, I apply CPL at
> the edge):
>
>
>- ^[0-9,a-z,A-Z]{0,6}@.*
>   -  The first 0-6 characters are made up of alphanumerics 0-9 and/or
>   upper/lower case letters, “@“ anything
>  - Example: 123...@domain.com
>  - Example: noa...@domian.com
>  - Example: 9...@domain.com
>
>
>- ^[0-9,a-z,A-Z]{0,6}$
>   - The first 0-6 characters are made up of alphanumerics 0-9 and/or
>   upper/lower case letter and do not exceed the 6th character
>   - Example: 1000
>   - Example: 
>   - Example: NoAuth
>   -
>
> Good Luck!
>
> -Ryan
>
> On May 15, 2019, at 19:30, Jonathan Charles  wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 6:16 PM Ryan Huff  wrote:
>
>> 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, but there are a few more moving parts
>> than what the marketing may lead one to believe. Here is the configuration
>> documentation:
>> https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cloudCollaboration/spark/hybridservices/callservices/cmgt_b_ciscospark-hybrid-call-service-config-guide.html
>> 
>>
>> Oh and don’t forget to enable MTLS on the edge and also be aware the
>> ControlHub now requires CCM 11.5.1SU3 or better (it detects CCM version via
>> call connector on Exp-C). It wouldn’t allow you to enable hybrid calling on
>> cloud registered devices otherwise.
>>
>> You can technically still get away using Expressway 8.11.4, but that’ll
>> soon be a deprecated version for hybrid calling (you’ll get an alarm about
>> it), so might as well go to 12.5.2 and be done with it.
>>
>> BTW, if you try to upgrade an 8.x Expressway to 12.5.x, you will interact
>> with GLO for the 12.x release key (can’t do it from the self service portal
>> because the existing 8.x virtual license is already associated to a PAK and
>> GLO has to invalidate t

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

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 > CCM (interacts with the 
dialplan for onnet/offnet calling).

Basically, it’s a B2B call that gets 15 pieces of flair added to it so it can 
utilize your on-prem gateway for PSTN access. When you go through the 
configuration, One of the steps will lead you to creating CTI devices in 
communications manager which share the users DID (Essentially, and on premise 
representation of the cloud registered device). The inbound flow is a little 
unique as it essentially capitalizes on a bastardized form of SNR to ring the 
cloud device.

As far as security goes, you are mostly at the mercy of traditional call policy 
rules (or more specifically writing search rules for your zones).

I have found the following to be two good "reject" policies that tend not to 
interfere with most deployments (though they could if the internal URIs match 
the policy). Most organizations have Directory URIs that ultimately have been 
inherited from the user's email address or other corporate standardizations 
which these policies tend to avoid and also tend to deny routing to a 
surprising amount of obvious junk (typically, I apply CPL at the edge):


  *   ^[0-9,a-z,A-Z]{0,6}@.*
 *The first 0-6 characters are made up of alphanumerics 0-9 and/or 
upper/lower case letters, “@“ anything
*   Example: 123...@domain.com
*   Example: noa...@domian.com
*   Example: 9...@domain.com

  *   ^[0-9,a-z,A-Z]{0,6}$
 *   The first 0-6 characters are made up of alphanumerics 0-9 and/or 
upper/lower case letter and do not exceed the 6th character
 *   Example: 1000
 *   Example: 
 *   Example: NoAuth
 *

Good Luck!

-Ryan

On May 15, 2019, at 19:30, Jonathan Charles 
mailto:jonv...@gmail.com>> wrote:

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



On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 6:16 PM Ryan Huff 
mailto:ryanh...@outlook.com>> wrote:
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, but there are a few more moving parts than 
what the marketing may lead one to believe. Here is the configuration 
documentation: 
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cloudCollaboration/spark/hybridservices/callservices/cmgt_b_ciscospark-hybrid-call-service-config-guide.html

Oh and don’t forget to enable MTLS on the edge and also be aware the ControlHub 
now requires CCM 11.5.1SU3 or better (it detects CCM version via call connector 
on Exp-C). It wouldn’t allow you to enable hybrid calling on cloud registered 
devices otherwise.

You can technically still get away using Expressway 8.11.4, but that’ll soon be 
a deprecated version for hybrid calling (you’ll get an alarm about it), so 
might as well go to 12.5.2 and be done with it.

BTW, if you try to upgrade an 8.x Expressway to 12.5.x, you will interact with 
GLO for the 12.x release key (can’t do it from the self service portal because 
the existing 8.x virtual license is already associated to a PAK and GLO has to 
invalidate that relationship first, then hash your new keys to 12.5.x).

Good Luck!

- Ryan

On May 15, 2019, at 18:42, Lelio Fulgenzi 
mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>> wrote:


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 recall correctly, my worries were somewhat 
alleviated.

However, that being said, there is only one template in control hub, so if your 
user needs a different setup on their remote destination (or something like 
that) you need to go make a manual change.

It’s sorta like how there’s only one licensing te

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

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.
>
> 
> 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 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 <519-824-4120;56354> | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
> On May 15, 2019, at 7:16 PM, Ryan Huff  wrote:
>
> 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, but there are a few more moving parts
> than what the marketing may lead one to believe. Here is the configuration
> documentation:
> https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cloudCollaboration/spark/hybridservices/callservices/cmgt_b_ciscospark-hybrid-call-service-config-guide.html
>
> Oh and don’t forget to enable MTLS on the edge and also be aware the
> ControlHub now requires CCM 11.5.1SU3 or better (it detects CCM version via
> call connector on Exp-C). It wouldn’t allow you to enable hybrid calling on
> cloud registered devices otherwise.
>
> You can technically still get away using Expressway 8.11.4, but that’ll
> soon be a deprecated version for hybrid calling (you’ll get an alarm about
> it), so might as well go to 12.5.2 and be done with it.
>
> BTW, if you try to upgrade an 8.x Expressway to 12.5.x, you will interact
> with GLO for the 12.x release key (can’t do it from the self service portal
> because the existing 8.x virtual license is already associated to a PAK and
> GLO has to invalidate that relationship first, then hash your new keys to
> 12.5.x).
>
> Good Luck!
>
> - Ryan
>
> On May 15, 2019, at 18:42, Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
>
>
> 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 recall correctly, my worries
> were somewhat alleviated.
>
> However, that being said, there is only one template in control hub, so if
> your user needs a different setup on their remote destination (or something
> like that) you need to go make a manual change.
>
> It’s sorta like how there’s only one licensing template in control hub for
> new users. We’re gonna struggle with that. We might have to engage
> (professional) services which make uses of APIs to assign different
> services for different users in webex. But I digress.
>
> *-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 <519-824-4120;56354> | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs
> 
>  |
> @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
> On May 15, 2019, at 5:20 PM, Jonathan Charles  wrote:
>
> 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
>
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> 
>
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing

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



On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 6:16 PM Ryan Huff  wrote:

> 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, but there are a few more moving parts
> than what the marketing may lead one to believe. Here is the configuration
> documentation:
> https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cloudCollaboration/spark/hybridservices/callservices/cmgt_b_ciscospark-hybrid-call-service-config-guide.html
>
> Oh and don’t forget to enable MTLS on the edge and also be aware the
> ControlHub now requires CCM 11.5.1SU3 or better (it detects CCM version via
> call connector on Exp-C). It wouldn’t allow you to enable hybrid calling on
> cloud registered devices otherwise.
>
> You can technically still get away using Expressway 8.11.4, but that’ll
> soon be a deprecated version for hybrid calling (you’ll get an alarm about
> it), so might as well go to 12.5.2 and be done with it.
>
> BTW, if you try to upgrade an 8.x Expressway to 12.5.x, you will interact
> with GLO for the 12.x release key (can’t do it from the self service portal
> because the existing 8.x virtual license is already associated to a PAK and
> GLO has to invalidate that relationship first, then hash your new keys to
> 12.5.x).
>
> Good Luck!
>
> - Ryan
>
> On May 15, 2019, at 18:42, Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
>
>
> 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 recall correctly, my worries
> were somewhat alleviated.
>
> However, that being said, there is only one template in control hub, so if
> your user needs a different setup on their remote destination (or something
> like that) you need to go make a manual change.
>
> It’s sorta like how there’s only one licensing template in control hub for
> new users. We’re gonna struggle with that. We might have to engage
> (professional) services which make uses of APIs to assign different
> services for different users in webex. But I digress.
>
> *-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 <519-824-4120;56354> | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs
> 
>  |
> @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
> On May 15, 2019, at 5:20 PM, Jonathan Charles  wrote:
>
> 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
>
> ___
> 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://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpuck.nether.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcisco-voip&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5b817b962f3e419f017508d6d986a8fe%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636935569711652307&sdata=UCJB8OKg5UlpRWHaTtp6Y2AJNzpfh6NmVWdejkBYmDI%3D&reserved=0
>
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

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

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 device-

www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram,
Twitter and Facebook

[University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]

On May 15, 2019, at 7:16 PM, Ryan Huff
mailto:ryanh...@outlook.com>> wrote:

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, but there are a few more moving parts than
what the marketing may lead one to believe. Here is the configuration
documentation:
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cloudCollaboration/spark/hybridservices/callservices/cmgt_b_ciscospark-hybrid-call-service-config-guide.html

Oh and don’t forget to enable MTLS on the edge and also be aware the ControlHub
now requires CCM 11.5.1SU3 or better (it detects CCM version via call connector
on Exp-C). It wouldn’t allow you to enable hybrid calling on cloud registered
devices otherwise.

You can technically still get away using Expressway 8.11.4, but that’ll soon be
a deprecated version for hybrid calling (you’ll get an alarm about it), so
might as well go to 12.5.2 and be done with it.

BTW, if you try to upgrade an 8.x Expressway to 12.5.x, you will interact with
GLO for the 12.x release key (can’t do it from the self service portal because
the existing 8.x virtual license is already associated to a PAK and GLO has to
invalidate that relationship first, then hash your new keys to 12.5.x).

Good Luck!

- Ryan

On May 15, 2019, at 18:42, Lelio Fulgenzi
mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>> wrote:

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 recall correctly, my worries were somewhat
alleviated.

However, that being said, there is only one template in control hub, so if your
user needs a different setup on their remote destination (or something like
that) you need to go make a manual change.

It’s sorta like how there’s only one licensing template in control hub for new
users. We’re gonna struggle with that. We might have to engage (professional)
services which make uses of APIs to assign different services for different
users in webex. But I digress.

-sent from mobile device-

www.uoguelph.ca/ccs
| @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook

[University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]

On May 15, 2019, at 5:20 PM, Jonathan Charles
mailto:jonv...@gmail.com>> wrote:

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
___
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://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpuck.nether.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcisco-voip&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5b817b962f3e419f017508d6d986a8fe%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636935569711652307&sdata=UCJB8OKg5UlpRWHaTtp6Y2AJNzpfh

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

Good Luck!

- Ryan

On May 15, 2019, at 18:42, Lelio Fulgenzi
mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>> wrote:

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 recall correctly, my worries were somewhat
alleviated.

However, that being said, there is only one template in control hub, so if your
user needs a different setup on their remote destination (or something like
that) you need to go make a manual change.

-sent from mobile device-

www.uoguelph.ca/ccs
| @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook

[University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]

On May 15, 2019, at 5:20 PM, Jonathan Charles
mailto:jonv...@gmail.com>> wrote:

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?

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


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 recall correctly, my worries were somewhat 
alleviated.

However, that being said, there is only one template in control hub, so if your 
user needs a different setup on their remote destination (or something like 
that) you need to go make a manual change.

It’s sorta like how there’s only one licensing template in control hub for new 
users. We’re gonna struggle with that. We might have to engage (professional) 
services which make uses of APIs to assign different services for different 
users in webex. But I digress.

-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 | 
le...@uoguelph.ca

www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, 
Twitter and Facebook

[University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]

On May 15, 2019, at 5:20 PM, Jonathan Charles 
mailto:jonv...@gmail.com>> wrote:

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
___
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] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?

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 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 into a CentOS based image
> though  ;).
>
> -Ryan
>
> On May 15, 2019, at 17:26, Charles Goldsmith  wrote:
>
> 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
> the "check installation media" portion of the install.  When I asked TAC
> about it, they told me to ignore and proceed with the install.  My guess is
> that the particular ISO I had didn't have the correct md5 on it.
>
> Others have installed just fine that I've received from them.
>
> Take that for what it's worth.
>
> Btw, you don't need to use Ultra ISO to make an iso bootable, linux tools
> can do the same thing.  Doesn't cost an Ultra ISO license and you don't
> have to download the ISO to your desktop and then upload it.  Not always
> feasible when doing things remotely.  Not that I've ever made an ISO for a
> customer, just saying :)
>
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 3:01 PM Evgeny Izetov  wrote:
>
>> 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 Communications Services | University of Guelph
>>>
>>> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
>>> N1G 2W1
>>>
>>> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 <519-824-4120;56354> | le...@uoguelph.ca
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs
>>> 
>>>  |
>>> @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>>>
>>> On May 15, 2019, at 3:22 PM, Charles Goldsmith 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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 <
>>> avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 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 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:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf
>> Of *Evgeny Izetov
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 15, 2019 11:17 AM
>> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi 
>> *Cc:* voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) <
>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 Enterprise Agreement. Is TAC the only way to get the bootable for a
>> specific SU? I believe there used to be a time when everyone was advised
>> that TAC is not able to provide bootables?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:18 PM Lelio Fulgenzi 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 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?

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 into a CentOS based image though  
;).

-Ryan

On May 15, 2019, at 17:26, Charles Goldsmith 
mailto:wo...@justfamily.org>> wrote:

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 the 
"check installation media" portion of the install.  When I asked TAC about it, 
they told me to ignore and proceed with the install.  My guess is that the 
particular ISO I had didn't have the correct md5 on it.

Others have installed just fine that I've received from them.

Take that for what it's worth.

Btw, you don't need to use Ultra ISO to make an iso bootable, linux tools can 
do the same thing.  Doesn't cost an Ultra ISO license and you don't have to 
download the ISO to your desktop and then upload it.  Not always feasible when 
doing things remotely.  Not that I've ever made an ISO for a customer, just 
saying :)


On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 3:01 PM Evgeny Izetov 
mailto:eize...@gmail.com>> wrote:
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 
mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>> wrote:
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 | 
le...@uoguelph.ca

www.uoguelph.ca/ccs
 | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook

[University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]

On May 15, 2019, at 3:22 PM, Charles Goldsmith 
mailto:wo...@justfamily.org>> wrote:

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 
mailto:avholloway%2bcisco-v...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:
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 
mailto:eize...@gmail.com>> wrote:
That's good to know. Was it 12.x or 11.x?

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 2:19 PM Haas, Neal 
mailto:nh...@fresnocountyca.gov>> 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: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Evgeny Izetov
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 11:17 AM
To: Lelio Fulgenzi mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>>
Cc: voyp list, cisco-voip 
(cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?

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 
Enterprise Agreement. Is TAC the only way to get the bootable for a specific 
SU? I believe there used to be a time when everyone was advised that TAC is not 
able to provide bootables?

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:18 PM Lelio Fulgenzi 
mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>> wrote:

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

www.uoguelph.ca/ccs
 | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook



From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Charles Goldsmith
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 12:09 PM
To: Evgeny Izetov mailto:eize...@gmail.com>>
Cc: voyp list, cisco-voip

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

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
the "check installation media" portion of the install.  When I asked TAC
about it, they told me to ignore and proceed with the install.  My guess is
that the particular ISO I had didn't have the correct md5 on it.

Others have installed just fine that I've received from them.

Take that for what it's worth.

Btw, you don't need to use Ultra ISO to make an iso bootable, linux tools
can do the same thing.  Doesn't cost an Ultra ISO license and you don't
have to download the ISO to your desktop and then upload it.  Not always
feasible when doing things remotely.  Not that I've ever made an ISO for a
customer, just saying :)


On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 3:01 PM Evgeny Izetov  wrote:

> 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 Communications Services | University of Guelph
>>
>> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
>> N1G 2W1
>>
>> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 <519-824-4120;56354> | le...@uoguelph.ca
>>
>>
>>
>> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>>
>> On May 15, 2019, at 3:22 PM, Charles Goldsmith 
>> wrote:
>>
>> 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 <
>> avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 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:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of
> *Evgeny Izetov
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 15, 2019 11:17 AM
> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi 
> *Cc:* voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) <
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?
>
>
>
> 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 Enterprise Agreement. Is TAC the only way to get the bootable for a
> specific SU? I believe there used to be a time when everyone was advised
> that TAC is not able to provide bootables?
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:18 PM Lelio Fulgenzi 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs
> 
> | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of
> *Charles Goldsmith
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 15, 2019 12:09 PM
> *To:* Evgeny Izetov 
> *Cc:* voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) <
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?
>
>
>
> 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
>

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

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

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 Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 <519-824-4120;56354> | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
> On May 15, 2019, at 3:22 PM, Charles Goldsmith 
> wrote:
>
> 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 <
> avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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 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:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of 
 *Evgeny
 Izetov
 *Sent:* Wednesday, May 15, 2019 11:17 AM
 *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi 
 *Cc:* voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) <
 cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
 *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?

 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 Enterprise Agreement. Is TAC the only way to get the bootable for a
 specific SU? I believe there used to be a time when everyone was advised
 that TAC is not able to provide bootables?

 On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:18 PM Lelio Fulgenzi 
 wrote:

 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

 www.uoguelph.ca/ccs

 | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook

 [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]

 *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of 
 *Charles
 Goldsmith
 *Sent:* Wednesday, May 15, 2019 12:09 PM
 *To:* Evgeny Izetov 
 *Cc:* voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) <
 cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
 *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?

 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 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, 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 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

 ---
 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

 www.uoguel

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

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 | 
le...@uoguelph.ca

www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, 
Twitter and Facebook

[University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]

On May 15, 2019, at 3:22 PM, Charles Goldsmith 
mailto:wo...@justfamily.org>> wrote:

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 
mailto:avholloway%2bcisco-v...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:
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 
mailto:eize...@gmail.com>> wrote:
That's good to know. Was it 12.x or 11.x?

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 2:19 PM Haas, Neal 
mailto:nh...@fresnocountyca.gov>> 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: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Evgeny Izetov
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 11:17 AM
To: Lelio Fulgenzi mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>>
Cc: voyp list, cisco-voip 
(cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?

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 
Enterprise Agreement. Is TAC the only way to get the bootable for a specific 
SU? I believe there used to be a time when everyone was advised that TAC is not 
able to provide bootables?

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:18 PM Lelio Fulgenzi 
mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>> wrote:

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

www.uoguelph.ca/ccs
 | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook

[University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]

From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Charles Goldsmith
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 12:09 PM
To: Evgeny Izetov mailto:eize...@gmail.com>>
Cc: voyp list, cisco-voip 
(cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?

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 
mailto:eize...@gmail.com>> wrote:
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 
mailto:bmead...@vt.edu>> 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, 2019 at 11:39 AM Lelio Fulgenzi 
mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>> 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 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

---
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>

www.uoguelph.ca/ccs

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

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 <
avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 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:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of 
>>> *Evgeny
>>> Izetov
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 15, 2019 11:17 AM
>>> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi 
>>> *Cc:* voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) <
>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 Enterprise Agreement. Is TAC the only way to get the bootable for a
>>> specific SU? I believe there used to be a time when everyone was advised
>>> that TAC is not able to provide bootables?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:18 PM Lelio Fulgenzi 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs
>>> 
>>> | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of 
>>> *Charles
>>> Goldsmith
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 15, 2019 12:09 PM
>>> *To:* Evgeny Izetov 
>>> *Cc:* voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) <
>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 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, 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 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
>>>
>>> ---
>>> 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
>>>
>>> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs
>>> 
>>> >> >
>>> | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>>>
>>> [University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>>>
>>> ___
>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>> cisco-voip@puck.ne

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), 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.. 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 
>> Enterprise Agreement. Is TAC the only way to get the bootable for a specific 
>> SU? I believe there used to be a time when everyone was advised that TAC is 
>> not able to provide bootables?
>> 
>>> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:18 PM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of Charles 
>>> Goldsmith
>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 12:09 PM
>>> To: Evgeny Izetov 
>>> Cc: voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) 
>>> 
>>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 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 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, 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 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
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, 
>>> Twitter and Facebook
>>> 
>>> [University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> 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
>>> 
> ___
> 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] 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.  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 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:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of 
>>> *Evgeny
>>> Izetov
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 15, 2019 11:17 AM
>>> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi 
>>> *Cc:* voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) <
>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 Enterprise Agreement. Is TAC the only way to get the bootable for a
>>> specific SU? I believe there used to be a time when everyone was advised
>>> that TAC is not able to provide bootables?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:18 PM Lelio Fulgenzi 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs
>>> 
>>> | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of 
>>> *Charles
>>> Goldsmith
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 15, 2019 12:09 PM
>>> *To:* Evgeny Izetov 
>>> *Cc:* voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) <
>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 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, 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 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
>>>
>>> ---
>>> 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
>>>
>>> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs
>>> 
>>> >> >
>>> | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>>>
>>> [University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>>>
>>> ___
>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listi

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 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:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Evgeny
>> Izetov
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 15, 2019 11:17 AM
>> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi 
>> *Cc:* voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) <
>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 Enterprise Agreement. Is TAC the only way to get the bootable for a
>> specific SU? I believe there used to be a time when everyone was advised
>> that TAC is not able to provide bootables?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:18 PM Lelio Fulgenzi 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs
>> 
>> | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of 
>> *Charles
>> Goldsmith
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 15, 2019 12:09 PM
>> *To:* Evgeny Izetov 
>> *Cc:* voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) <
>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 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, 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 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
>>
>> ---
>> 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
>>
>> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs
>> 
>> > >
>> | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>>
>> [University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>>
>> ___
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>> 
>>
>> ___
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> c

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

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.. 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 Enterprise Agreement. Is TAC the only way to get the bootable for a
> specific SU? I believe there used to be a time when everyone was advised
> that TAC is not able to provide bootables?
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:18 PM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of 
>> *Charles
>> Goldsmith
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 15, 2019 12:09 PM
>> *To:* Evgeny Izetov 
>> *Cc:* voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) <
>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 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, 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 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
>>
>> ---
>> 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
>>
>> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram,
>> Twitter and Facebook
>>
>> [University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>>
>>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

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

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:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Evgeny
> Izetov
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 15, 2019 11:17 AM
> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi 
> *Cc:* voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) <
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?
>
>
>
> 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 Enterprise Agreement. Is TAC the only way to get the bootable for a
> specific SU? I believe there used to be a time when everyone was advised
> that TAC is not able to provide bootables?
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:18 PM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs
> 
> | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Charles
> Goldsmith
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 15, 2019 12:09 PM
> *To:* Evgeny Izetov 
> *Cc:* voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) <
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?
>
>
>
> 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 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, 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 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
>
> ---
> 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
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs
> 
>  >
> | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
> [University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
> ___
> 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] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?

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 Enterprise Agreement. Is TAC the only way to get the bootable for a
specific SU? I believe there used to be a time when everyone was advised
that TAC is not able to provide bootables?

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:18 PM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:

>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Charles
> Goldsmith
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 15, 2019 12:09 PM
> *To:* Evgeny Izetov 
> *Cc:* voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) <
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?
>
>
>
> 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 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, 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 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
>
> ---
> 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
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram,
> Twitter and Facebook
>
> [University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
> ___
> 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
>
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

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

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 Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON | N1G 2W1
519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 | le...@uoguelph.ca

www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, 
Twitter and Facebook

[University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]

From: Evgeny Izetov 
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 12:00 PM
To: Brian Meade 
Cc: Lelio Fulgenzi ; voyp list, cisco-voip 
(cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) 
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?

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 
mailto:bmead...@vt.edu>> 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, 2019 at 11:39 AM Lelio Fulgenzi 
mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>> 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 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

---
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>

www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | 
@UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook

[University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]

___
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] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?


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

www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, 
Twitter and Facebook

[University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]

From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of Charles 
Goldsmith
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 12:09 PM
To: Evgeny Izetov 
Cc: voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) 

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

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 
mailto:eize...@gmail.com>> wrote:
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 
mailto:bmead...@vt.edu>> 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, 2019 at 11:39 AM Lelio Fulgenzi 
mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>> 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 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

---
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>

www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | 
@UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook

[University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]

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

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

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 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, 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 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
>>>
>>> ---
>>> 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
>>>
>>> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on
>>> Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>>>
>>> [University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

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

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, 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 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
>>
>> ---
>> 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
>>
>> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram,
>> Twitter and Facebook
>>
>> [University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>>
>> ___
>> 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] 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 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
>
> ---
> 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
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram,
> Twitter and Facebook
>
> [University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
> ___
> 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] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?