Re: [cisco-voip] CUC 10.5 to 14 ER Not working

[Matthew Loraditch]

It won’t upgrade or you are running the check and it’s failing?  It’s been a 
while since I’ve done one of these myself, but if it’s just the  check tool, 
try to just run the actual upgrade.

I believe the tool is intended to be run on all servers before you start 
anything.

From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of Mathew Miller
Sent: Monday, January 3, 2022 1:54 PM
To: James Buchanan 
Cc: Cisco VOIP 
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUC 10.5 to 14 ER Not working

[EXTERNAL]

The subscriber will not upgrade.
I'm getting a failure on the pre-upgrade check for the subscriber.

1.1  FAIL  Network status (NTP, DNS, Cluster Connectivity)
 validate_network: Error, intra-cluster communication is broken, unable
 to connect to X.X.X.X


On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 10:22 AM James Buchanan 
mailto:james.buchan...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hello,

Have you upgraded the subscriber? That needs to be done before database 
replication will work.

Thanks?

James


On 3 Jan 2022, at 18:15, Mathew Miller 
mailto:miller.mat...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hello,

Working on an upgrade from CUC 10.5 to 14.

Publisher finished and didn't seem to have any issues.

After running the post upgrade check COP file it fails

1.1  FAIL  Cluster Database Status (Node authentication and replication 
status)


When I do a utils dbreplication status it shows

Enterprise Replication not active  (62)
command failed -- unable to connect to server specified  (5)



utils dbreplication runtimestate it says


Cluster Detailed View from CUC-01 (2 Servers):

  PING  DB/RPC/   REPL.Replication  
  REPLICATION SETUP
SERVER-NAME IP ADDRESS(msec)DbMon?QUEUEGroup ID 
  (RTMT) & Details
--- -------   ----  
  --
CUC-01   X.X.X.X 0.018 Y/Y/Y --   (-)(-) 
Replication Not Setup
CUC-02   X.X.X.X 0.125 Y/Y/Y --   (-)(-) 
DB-diff


I've attempted to reset replication this way.

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/unified-communications/unity-connection/116942-technote-uc-00.html


It doesn't seem to be working for me. Replication status always just says not 
setup

Any ideas?


___
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] Small business E911 solution

[Matthew Loraditch]

I'm very curious if you find something. I'm not aware of anything cost 
effective at your size. RedSky's minimum purchase for a CUCM based system is 
12-14k.

Have you looked at moving to a hosted phone system? Almost every vendor I'm 
aware of includes E911 therein




Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
(He/Him/His)
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of Matthew Huff
Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 1:34 PM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-voip] Small business E911 solution

[EXTERNAL]

We are in the process of moving from legacy ISDN PRI for inbound/outbound 
dialing to SIP, and E911 has hit us in the face. We have less than 50 users, 
where > 90% currently are working from home. They have the same prime dn for 
both the office phone and their home phone. We have users that have phones in 
3-4 locations including in multiple states. What is the simplest solution to 
setup and maintain that doesn't require a user to have a separate DID in each 
location? Cisco Emergency Responder looks like major overkill.

Our environment is:
CUCM 14.x
Cisco Expressway 14.x for MRA
Cisco 8861 SIP phones (both at home and at work).

Matthew Huff | Director of Technical Operations | OTA Management LLC

Office: 914-460-4039
mh...@ox.com<mailto:mh...@ox.com> | www.ox.com<http://www.ox.com>
...

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

Re: [cisco-voip] Error Processing SAML Response

[Matthew Loraditch]

The logs are pretty clear when its a time difference as the error. I’ve not 
seen it randomly occur but definitely the error will be it’s time and may even 
show the difference.

Its the 4j log file for sso I believe

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
(He/Him/His)
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: cisco-voip  on behalf of Lelio 
Fulgenzi 
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 4:32:12 PM
To: Jonathan Charles ; Benjamin Turner 

Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net 
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Error Processing SAML Response


[EXTERNAL]


Have you been able to confirm the time difference?



I’m not trying to take their side of things, but if it’s minutes off, I 
wouldn’t doubt that’s possible. SSO is highly secure, right? A time difference 
might be enough to throw it off?



Here’s  reference:



https://support.pingidentity.com/s/article/Accounting-for-Time-Drift-Between-SAML-Endpoints50907







From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of Jonathan 
Charles
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 6:23 PM
To: Benjamin Turner 
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Error Processing SAML Response



CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph. Do not 
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the 
content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to 
ith...@uoguelph.ca<mailto:ith...@uoguelph.ca>



No... TBH, I have never heard of it...



TAC is hyper-asserting that the issue is time mismatch between CUCM/CUC and 
ADFS...





Jonathan



On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 4:08 PM Benjamin Turner 
mailto:benmtur...@hotmail.com>> wrote:

Have you tried to run a SAML Tracer?



Sincerely,
Benjamin M. Turner



From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
on behalf of Jonathan Charles mailto:jonv...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 4:56:48 PM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net> 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: [cisco-voip] Error Processing SAML Response



So, users are randomly getting the above error when logging into CUCM UCMUser 
or CUC Inbox... we are also getting it using AD credentials into admin pages 
for CUCM/CUC/etc.



For a user, it will work find repeatedly, then you will get the error, close 
your browser, and reopen, still get the error for a few minutes. Then later it 
will work. When a user is affected, other users work fine.



TAC is saying it is an NTP issue, however, NTP between CUCM 12.5 and IdP (ADFS 
2.0) is fine.



Pings are around 1ms between servers.



Any ideas?





Jonathan






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

[cisco-voip] CCX 12.5 SU1 HTTP Trigger doing 302 Redirect

[Matthew Loraditch]

We have a CCX NAT'd to the internet with appropriate firewall rules in place to 
allow only a specific 3rd party to place http trigger calls.

Before SU1 Install (12.5 Based with ESs) this worked.

Now a call to an http trigger via https://dnsnameforuccx.co:9443/AppName?Params 
is 302 redirecting to https://internalipofuccx:9443/AppName?Params
Same thing happens if we use the external ip.

Is anyone aware of anything that would cause this? I can't find anything in the 
release notes or bugs (albeit they are not the easiest to find).

May have to build a VPN, we avoided that previously because it's billable.











Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
(He/Him/His)
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] New handset models

[Matthew Loraditch]

I haven't heard any whispers of anything in partner world or otherwise nor have 
I actually seen anyone even ask the question.



Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
(He/Him/His)
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
-Original Message-
From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of James 
Andrewartha
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2021 4:02 AM
To: cisco-voip voip list 
Subject: [cisco-voip] New handset models

[EXTERNAL]


Hi all,

Does anyone know if Cisco is going to be launching new handset models soon? The 
88x1 series were released in May 2014, while our 79x5s (bought September 2010) 
are going end of support in June 2023. So you'd think they would be releasing a 
new range soon. Or does Cisco see the future as being soft phones and headsets?

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/collaboration-endpoints/unified-ip-phone-8800-series/series.html
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/collaboration-endpoints/unified-ip-phone-7900-series/series.html

Thanks,

--
James Andrewartha
Network & Projects Engineer
Christ Church Grammar School
Claremont, Western Australia
Ph. (08) 9442 1757
Mob. 0424 160 877
___
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] CCX Selected Resource User ID showing as Stars

[Matthew Loraditch]

Thanks, guess I found a bug but if that changed line does what I need, not 
going to bother with tac!


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
(He/Him/His)
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Anthony Holloway 
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2021 1:54 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CCX Selected Resource User ID showing as Stars

[EXTERNAL]

Interesting!  I just tried something like this in 12.5(1) and I get the same 
thing as you.

I did achieve the desired outcome using the Get User Info step instead of 
casting the User object to a String,

cleanAgentID = Get User Info (selectedResource, Identifier)

On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 2:02 PM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
We collect the name of the agent for recording to our ticketing system.

Apparently no one has used this piece of  data in a long time, but I noticed it 
today. All agents are showing up as “***”

CCX 12.5

Here is what the script does:
[cid:image001.png@01D766AD.5212AD10]

And the values I got in my debug:


[cid:image002.png@01D766AD.5212AD10]

What is going on here? Do I need to change how I capture this?

Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
(He/Him/His)
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

[cisco-voip] CCX Selected Resource User ID showing as Stars

[Matthew Loraditch]

We collect the name of the agent for recording to our ticketing system.

Apparently no one has used this piece of  data in a long time, but I noticed it 
today. All agents are showing up as "***"

CCX 12.5

Here is what the script does:
[cid:image001.png@01D761F6.8425D540]

And the values I got in my debug:


[cid:image002.png@01D761F6.8425D540]

What is going on here? Do I need to change how I capture this?

Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
(He/Him/His)
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] CUM 11.5 report question

[Matthew Loraditch]

Do you not have IMPP online? Diagnostics, System Dashboard will show logged in 
users.


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of James Dust
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 3:16 PM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-voip] CUM 11.5 report question

[EXTERNAL]

Good evening all,

Does anyone know if there is a  way to run a report, on the active load ID of a 
TCT, CSF or BOT profile on cucm.

I need to carry out an audit, to see if any staff members are still using Cisco 
Jabber.

Many thanks

James

Consider the environment - Think before you print

The contents of this email are confidential to the intended recipient and may 
not be disclosed. Although it is believed that this email and any attachments 
are virus free, it is the responsibility of the recipient to confirm this.

You are advised that urgent, time-sensitive communications should not be sent 
by email. We hereby give you notice that a delivery receipt does not constitute 
acknowledgement or receipt by the intended recipient(s).

Details of Charles Stanley group companies and their regulators (where 
applicable), can be found at this URL 
http://www.charles-stanley.co.uk/contact-us/disclosure/
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Hold Music

[Matthew Loraditch]

That wouldn’t matter in this scenario but appreciate the info!


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: DJ Lundberg 
Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 2:48 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch ; Brian V 

Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net; DJ Lundberg 
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] UCCX Hold Music

[EXTERNAL]

One word of caution using a play prompt step for the hold music:  This allows 
the caller to press the # key and skip the remaining portion of the prompt.

It’s not a huge deal, but something to be aware of if you previously would have 
used the delay step to control how long the caller is waiting before offering 
them an alternative to holding.  E.g. leave a voicemail, receive a callback, 
etc.

You might get some supervisors asking why a caller was only in queue for 2 
minutes before transferring to voicemail when they are expected to hold for 5.

DJ

From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Matthew Loraditch
Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 2:31 PM
To: Brian V mailto:bvanb...@gmail.com>>
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Hold Music

Didn’t think about that, so I could just play the new MOH as a prompt, As long 
as it’s interruptible the call will still transfer to the agent while playing 
if one becomes available?


Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
From: Brian V mailto:bvanb...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 3:25 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Hold Music

[EXTERNAL]

Depends if you want your MoH to come from putting the call on hold (script step 
Call Hold) or via Play Prompt
with the Call Hold Step, the internal leg is actually torn down from UCCX and 
moved to CUCM's media streaming service.   MoH comes from the CTI ports and 
you'd need different port groups per app to get different messaging .

The other option is in the script, use the Play Prompt step to play the 
messaging from UCCX.  In this case the call is never put on Hold from a CUCM 
point of view and the media stays with UCCX.  I think the step you can look at 
is a Cascading Prompt (someone jump in if I have this wrong) and in that step  
you can provide various static wav files and it will stitch them together for 
you in a linear or random fashion.  One of the main drawbacks of this method is 
your "hold time" between announcements is determined by the length of your .wav 
file.  Make sure you set the play prompt to be "interruptible" so the first 
available avent pulls the call.

On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 2:19 PM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
Am I thinking about this right?

MOH for UCCX comes from the CTI ports.

If a customer wants different MOH per different queues they will need separate 
CCGs for each queue?

If I do it that way I have to capacity plan per queue vs overall system or 
application capacity?

For an agent based install, can I mix and match IVR port licenses? I don’t 
believe so, and certainly not on a smart install on flex based on what I can 
see.

They have intermittent announcements right now, which is what I usually do for 
folks, I’m thinking this would be a nightmare.





Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Hold Music

[Matthew Loraditch]

Didn’t think about that, so I could just play the new MOH as a prompt, As long 
as it’s interruptible the call will still transfer to the agent while playing 
if one becomes available?


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Brian V 
Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 3:25 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Hold Music

[EXTERNAL]

Depends if you want your MoH to come from putting the call on hold (script step 
Call Hold) or via Play Prompt
with the Call Hold Step, the internal leg is actually torn down from UCCX and 
moved to CUCM's media streaming service.   MoH comes from the CTI ports and 
you'd need different port groups per app to get different messaging .

The other option is in the script, use the Play Prompt step to play the 
messaging from UCCX.  In this case the call is never put on Hold from a CUCM 
point of view and the media stays with UCCX.  I think the step you can look at 
is a Cascading Prompt (someone jump in if I have this wrong) and in that step  
you can provide various static wav files and it will stitch them together for 
you in a linear or random fashion.  One of the main drawbacks of this method is 
your "hold time" between announcements is determined by the length of your .wav 
file.  Make sure you set the play prompt to be "interruptible" so the first 
available avent pulls the call.

On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 2:19 PM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
Am I thinking about this right?

MOH for UCCX comes from the CTI ports.

If a customer wants different MOH per different queues they will need separate 
CCGs for each queue?

If I do it that way I have to capacity plan per queue vs overall system or 
application capacity?

For an agent based install, can I mix and match IVR port licenses? I don’t 
believe so, and certainly not on a smart install on flex based on what I can 
see.

They have intermittent announcements right now, which is what I usually do for 
folks, I’m thinking this would be a nightmare.





Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

[cisco-voip] UCCX Hold Music

[Matthew Loraditch]

Am I thinking about this right?

MOH for UCCX comes from the CTI ports.

If a customer wants different MOH per different queues they will need separate 
CCGs for each queue?

If I do it that way I have to capacity plan per queue vs overall system or 
application capacity?

For an agent based install, can I mix and match IVR port licenses? I don't 
believe so, and certainly not on a smart install on flex based on what I can 
see.

They have intermittent announcements right now, which is what I usually do for 
folks, I'm thinking this would be a nightmare.





Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] 12.5 Migration/Rename/SBD

[Matthew Loraditch]

Actually I don’t think I can use BCM. They have to be both online for that and 
that won’t be the case.

Like I said many moons!


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of Matthew 
Loraditch
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 11:57 AM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-voip] 12.5 Migration/Rename/SBD

[EXTERNAL]

I’m migrating some 12.5 servers from old host to new via DRS. Can’t just move 
the VMs for various reasons.

I’d like to rename the servers, update DNS in the process. Will not be reiping. 
Will be moving the production subnet to new DC when I cut.

I have a change freeze window where I’ve got several days to restore the 
backups and make the changes.

All phones are 78XX/88XX.

I know there have been various improvements to SBD over the years. I’m going to 
use Bulk Certificate Management, but  should I technically have to for what I’m 
doing?

Mostly just curious, it’s been many moons since I’ve had to do a migration like 
this.



Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>

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

[cisco-voip] 12.5 Migration/Rename/SBD

[Matthew Loraditch]

I'm migrating some 12.5 servers from old host to new via DRS. Can't just move 
the VMs for various reasons.

I'd like to rename the servers, update DNS in the process. Will not be reiping. 
Will be moving the production subnet to new DC when I cut.

I have a change freeze window where I've got several days to restore the 
backups and make the changes.

All phones are 78XX/88XX.

I know there have been various improvements to SBD over the years. I'm going to 
use Bulk Certificate Management, but  should I technically have to for what I'm 
doing?

Mostly just curious, it's been many moons since I've had to do a migration like 
this.



Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] Adding UCCX CTI ports

[Matthew Loraditch]

Appreciate the datapoints. We’ll see what the call center managers feel like 
doing.


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Tanner Ezell 
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2021 10:25 AM
To: Josh Nordquist 
Cc: Matthew Loraditch ; 
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Adding UCCX CTI ports

[EXTERNAL]

Yes but you shouldn’t.

I have a list of “this shouldn’t fuck up production”...

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 7:22 AM Josh Nordquist 
mailto:joshnordqu...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Did a quick test and it didn't disrupt folks in the queue.

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 9:03 AM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
Can this be done w/o disrupting call flow? Have a situation with extreme volume 
for an install beyond anything ever anticipated. Have license capacity.

Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

[cisco-voip] Adding UCCX CTI ports

[Matthew Loraditch]

Can this be done w/o disrupting call flow? Have a situation with extreme volume 
for an install beyond anything ever anticipated. Have license capacity.

Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] isr dsp in wrong port?

[Matthew Loraditch]

I’ve not seen it, but if you are driving 4 PRIs you will definitely  have to do 
it. The DSPs are the same type just different capacities, but the DSPs  used 
for TDM to IP conversion that a PRI needs must be on the PRI NIM in an ISR4XXX. 
You can still use the extra capacity for transcoding etc.


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of Scott Voll
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 4:47 PM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-voip] isr dsp in wrong port?

[EXTERNAL]

Has anyone dealt with the PVDM's being put on the Motherboard and it's supposed 
to be on the card?

I got a new 4431 and the 256 was put on the motherboard and the 32 was put on 
the 4 PRI port card.  TAC is advising to switch the location of the two PVDM 
cards.

Does this sound correct?

TIA

Scott

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

[cisco-voip] Non Flash Versions of the Cisco Phone Tutorials

[Matthew Loraditch]

Is anyone aware of any updated non flash versions of these tutorials?

Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] RedSky SIP Trunk

[Matthew Loraditch]

Outbound only

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Anthony Holloway 
Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2020 8:58:39 AM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net 
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] RedSky SIP Trunk


[EXTERNAL]


Was there a need for inbound traffic initiated from RedSky, or is this purely 
outbound from CUCM?

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 1:29 PM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:

Nope it is actually as simple as they said. Basic sip trunk out of CUCM. No 
special profiles, or anything.  Am having problems as one of my CUCMs goes 
through an ISR to get to RedSky vs an ASA. ISR NAT is being funky but dealing 
with that.




Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>|  
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>

From: Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway%2bcisco-v...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 2:27 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] RedSky SIP Trunk



[EXTERNAL]



So...are you still without a functional SIP trunk then Matt?



On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 8:08 AM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:

Has anyone done this? Surprisingly they don’t provide a bunch of guidance here. 
I’m so used to carriers and other vendors being very very specific about how to 
setup their trunks.



I was planning on doing them directly in CUCM as that seemed simpler, but would 
appreciate any input.







Matthew Loraditch​

Sr. Network Engineer

p: 443.541.1518

w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>

 |

e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>

[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>

[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>

[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>

[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>

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

Re: [cisco-voip] End of Sale for Perpetual Calling Licenses and related SWSS

[Matthew Loraditch]

Flex has and will include the same TAC access you’ve had for software with SWSS 
(24x7) for no additional cost. There are enhanced levels that cost more and 
come with additional features. I don’t honestly know the details on those, they 
are designed for large/hi touch accounts, I think dedicated support managers 
and account reviews or similar.


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Anthony Holloway 
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 10:23 AM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] End of Sale for Perpetual Calling Licenses and 
related SWSS

[EXTERNAL]

That's great info, thank you for sharing.

Does this mean that "traditional" tac support is also changing?  Because, 
doesn't Flex come with tired TAC support?  Any info you can share there? Thanks!

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 8:48 AM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/unified-communications/unified-communications-licensing/eos-eol-notice-c51-744285.html
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/unified-communications/unified-communications-licensing/eos-eol-notice-c51-744286.html

Everything CUCM/UCXN is moving to a new Flex 3.0 License model.

It’s got better pricing than before with significant multi year discounts for 
36 month or greater commitments. For on-prem folks SRST and CER licenses are 
included with all license levels and there are levels now with cheaper options 
for what would have been UCL Enhanced, and UCL Essential/Basic users.

Key Dates:

Yesterday- SWSS Reinstatements ended
1/23/21 – Non BE6K licenses/SWSS no longer available for Sale, all add ons must 
be flex, also last day to renew existing SWSS as multi year
7/24/21 – BE6K licenses/SWSS no longer available for sale
1/29/22- Last Day to renew any SWSS Contract
1/27/24- Last Day of Support via SWSS (you would have had to do a Multi Year 
Renewal before 1/23/21)


Partner Link: https://salesconnect.cisco.com/#/program/PAGE-2888

Customer Link: 
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/unified-communications/cisco-collaboration-flex-plan/datasheet-c78-744220.html




Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

[cisco-voip] End of Sale for Perpetual Calling Licenses and related SWSS

[Matthew Loraditch]

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/unified-communications/unified-communications-licensing/eos-eol-notice-c51-744285.html
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/unified-communications/unified-communications-licensing/eos-eol-notice-c51-744286.html

Everything CUCM/UCXN is moving to a new Flex 3.0 License model.

It's got better pricing than before with significant multi year discounts for 
36 month or greater commitments. For on-prem folks SRST and CER licenses are 
included with all license levels and there are levels now with cheaper options 
for what would have been UCL Enhanced, and UCL Essential/Basic users.

Key Dates:

Yesterday- SWSS Reinstatements ended
1/23/21 - Non BE6K licenses/SWSS no longer available for Sale, all add ons must 
be flex, also last day to renew existing SWSS as multi year
7/24/21 - BE6K licenses/SWSS no longer available for sale
1/29/22- Last Day to renew any SWSS Contract
1/27/24- Last Day of Support via SWSS (you would have had to do a Multi Year 
Renewal before 1/23/21)


Partner Link: https://salesconnect.cisco.com/#/program/PAGE-2888

Customer Link: 
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/unified-communications/cisco-collaboration-flex-plan/datasheet-c78-744220.html




Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] SIP Binding: Different Binds for Carrier vs Internal

[Matthew Loraditch]

Yeah I thought about that, but not my area of strength nor something I 
anticipate needing us to know down the road. The binding stuff seems to be 
sufficient for my needs.


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Jason Aarons 
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 7:26 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
Cc: cisco-voip 
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SIP Binding: Different Binds for Carrier vs Internal

[EXTERNAL]

What is VRF?

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 3:25 PM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
I need to bind call legs to my carrier to one IP and all legs to CUCM on 
another IP on the same router and neither side ever see the other’s IP nor need 
to route to it

I’ve done something, at least similar, many years in the past but no longer 
have access to the environment to verify the behavior and am trying to refresh 
myself on the setting.

In that setup we bound the dial peers to the relevant interfaces and enabled 
allow-connections sip to sip and address-hiding in my voice service voip config.

>From what I further understand media flow-through is the default behavior so 
>as long as I do the binding, I will get what I want to happen happening.

Am I generally correct in all of my current thoughts? Anything I’m not thinking 
of?






Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] SIP Binding: Different Binds for Carrier vs Internal

[Matthew Loraditch]

The way you  have #2 written is bothering me, if you only have one interface 
period you should never need to bind, but if you only have one egress interface 
and need certain traffic to be on IP A and some on IP B (via loopbacks) then 
you would need to bind and that is my scenario.


I have a complicated (to me!) routing situation and I need my PSTN traffic to 
the ITSP to be on an IP that only they know about and my internal traffic to be 
the same. This was the best way I could think of to make that happen.







Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Anthony Holloway 
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 5:46 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SIP Binding: Different Binds for Carrier vs Internal

[EXTERNAL]

First up, you don't need to bind your interfaces.  You should bind your 
interfaces in two scenarios though:

1. You're trying to source your IP from a loopback address
2. You only have one interface

Otherwise, let the router do it's routing and it will pick the correct 
interface to "bind" SIP too, by the nature of which interface the packet leaves 
the router from.

Now, you can bind, if you want to, but it doesn't do anything extra, to the 
best of my knowledge.

When you say, "[n]ever see the other’s IP," you should know that this happens 
by default.  That's what a B2BUA does.  It terminates a dialog with one peer, 
and then turns around and originates a new dialog with a different peer.

And yes, flow through is default, but that does not affect signaling, which it 
kind of sounds like is the topic at hand.  Otherwise, flow around means your 
carrier knows how to hit your inside IP Phone addresses directly, and that's 
not likely the case.

So literally, you do not have to do anything extra or special to get what you 
want.  You simply configure the router as a device with two interfaces on two 
different networks, and teach it how to route (e.g., static routing or 
something, I don't know I'm not a CCIE Routing and Switching).

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 2:25 PM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
I need to bind call legs to my carrier to one IP and all legs to CUCM on 
another IP on the same router and neither side ever see the other’s IP nor need 
to route to it

I’ve done something, at least similar, many years in the past but no longer 
have access to the environment to verify the behavior and am trying to refresh 
myself on the setting.

In that setup we bound the dial peers to the relevant interfaces and enabled 
allow-connections sip to sip and address-hiding in my voice service voip config.

>From what I further understand media flow-through is the default behavior so 
>as long as I do the binding, I will get what I want to happen happening.

Am I generally correct in all of my current thoughts? Anything I’m not thinking 
of?






Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

[cisco-voip] SIP Binding: Different Binds for Carrier vs Internal

[Matthew Loraditch]

I need to bind call legs to my carrier to one IP and all legs to CUCM on 
another IP on the same router and neither side ever see the other's IP nor need 
to route to it

I've done something, at least similar, many years in the past but no longer 
have access to the environment to verify the behavior and am trying to refresh 
myself on the setting.

In that setup we bound the dial peers to the relevant interfaces and enabled 
allow-connections sip to sip and address-hiding in my voice service voip config.

>From what I further understand media flow-through is the default behavior so 
>as long as I do the binding, I will get what I want to happen happening.

Am I generally correct in all of my current thoughts? Anything I'm not thinking 
of?






Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

[cisco-voip] Phone Number Monitoring

[Matthew Loraditch]

We are having an intermittent issue with our inbound calling not working. The 
biggest issue is we have to live troubleshoot with the carrier when it happens 
and it doesn't last super long (10-20 minutes) but with everyone remote reports 
of things not working don't get to us fast enough.  The service is SIP based 
and stays registered so it's very hard to monitor the status.

Has anyone used a service like this: 
www.phonenumbermonitoring.com<http://www.phonenumbermonitoring.com> that will 
test your numbers for you and report if they fail or not?





Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] Remote UCCX users

[Matthew Loraditch]

Until SU1 for 12.5 comes out, a UCCX extension is only allowed on one device.

You would need their extensions to only be on their Jabber CSFs and them run 
Jabber on their home devices and not have them on their desk phones. You can 
also technically  use IP Communicator with Extension Mobility but it’s no 
longer supported and hasn’t been  updated in a while so depending on your risk 
tolerance that may or may not be an option. We are still using IPC for remote 
workers.

Once 12.5 SU1 comes out you can FINALLY have a uccx extension on as many 
devices as you want.


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of James Dust
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 5:29 PM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-voip] Remote UCCX users

[EXTERNAL]

I have a number of users working remotely who are part of a queue on UCCX,

They are using jabber on their windows desktop (csf profile on cucm) and are 
connecting into our network via our VPN.

The users would normally just take calls on their desk phones in our office, 
but are working remotely due to COVID.

Thing is they are only able to receive calls when logged into their desk 
phone’s in the office (even though they are fielding the calls via jabber 
whilst working remotely)

Is there any way around this dependancy?

Consider the environment - Think before you print

The contents of this email are confidential to the intended recipient and may 
not be disclosed. Although it is believed that this email and any attachments 
are virus free, it is the responsibility of the recipient to confirm this.

You are advised that urgent, time-sensitive communications should not be sent 
by email. We hereby give you notice that a delivery receipt does not constitute 
acknowledgement or receipt by the intended recipient(s).

Details of Charles Stanley group companies and their regulators (where 
applicable), can be found at this URL 
http://www.charles-stanley.co.uk/contact-us/disclosure/
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] 12.5 SU3 is Out - Important change (IMO)

[Matthew Loraditch]

The latter it’s software inside each server. You can’t do anything with it it’s 
just there.

You may need to follow different commands to restart Tomcat now? Not sure and 
didn’t see anything about that.


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Lelio Fulgenzi 
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 4:07 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch ; 
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: 12.5 SU3 is Out - Important change (IMO)

[EXTERNAL]

I can’t find any feature documentation. Is this a new thing that we can take 
advantage of by configuring multiple servers or something? OR is it just 
backend stuff that I don’t have to worry about nor can I configure?


From: Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 3:55 PM
To: Lelio Fulgenzi mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>>; 
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
Subject: RE: 12.5 SU3 is Out - Important change (IMO)

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph. Do not 
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the 
content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to 
ith...@uoguelph.ca<mailto:ith...@uoguelph.ca>

New service in front of Tomcat to make tomcat services more performant.


Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
From: Lelio Fulgenzi mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>>
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 3:54 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>; 
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
Subject: RE: 12.5 SU3 is Out - Important change (IMO)

[EXTERNAL]

What’s HA Proxy?

From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Matthew Loraditch
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 3:08 PM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
Subject: [cisco-voip] 12.5 SU3 is Out - Important change (IMO)

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph. Do not 
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the 
content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to 
ith...@uoguelph.ca<mailto:ith...@uoguelph.ca>

Some may have heard of the work to help make performance better and here’s a 
neat little caveat for the new HAProxy for Tomcat:

“Restart of the Cisco TFTP service will temporarily result in the 
unavailability of the web services up to 10 seconds on that node where HAProxy 
undergoes restart.”

I know at least in my environments I restart TFTP during business hours when 
necessary. Need to think about that more in smaller environments since now you 
could be turning off AXL and such briefly.

See here: 
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/rel_notes/12_5_1/SU3/cucm_b_release-notes-for-cucm-imp-1251su3/cucm_m_about-this-release.html#concept_297A520DF0A0B5830F2B916C4CBC88E3



Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>

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

Re: [cisco-voip] 12.5 SU3 is Out - Important change (IMO)

[Matthew Loraditch]

New service in front of Tomcat to make tomcat services more performant.


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Lelio Fulgenzi 
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 3:54 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch ; 
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: 12.5 SU3 is Out - Important change (IMO)

[EXTERNAL]

What’s HA Proxy?

From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Matthew Loraditch
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 3:08 PM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
Subject: [cisco-voip] 12.5 SU3 is Out - Important change (IMO)

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph. Do not 
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the 
content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to 
ith...@uoguelph.ca<mailto:ith...@uoguelph.ca>

Some may have heard of the work to help make performance better and here’s a 
neat little caveat for the new HAProxy for Tomcat:

“Restart of the Cisco TFTP service will temporarily result in the 
unavailability of the web services up to 10 seconds on that node where HAProxy 
undergoes restart.”

I know at least in my environments I restart TFTP during business hours when 
necessary. Need to think about that more in smaller environments since now you 
could be turning off AXL and such briefly.

See here: 
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/rel_notes/12_5_1/SU3/cucm_b_release-notes-for-cucm-imp-1251su3/cucm_m_about-this-release.html#concept_297A520DF0A0B5830F2B916C4CBC88E3



Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>

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

[cisco-voip] 12.5 SU3 is Out - Important change (IMO)

[Matthew Loraditch]

Some may have heard of the work to help make performance better and here's a 
neat little caveat for the new HAProxy for Tomcat:

"Restart of the Cisco TFTP service will temporarily result in the 
unavailability of the web services up to 10 seconds on that node where HAProxy 
undergoes restart."

I know at least in my environments I restart TFTP during business hours when 
necessary. Need to think about that more in smaller environments since now you 
could be turning off AXL and such briefly.

See here: 
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/rel_notes/12_5_1/SU3/cucm_b_release-notes-for-cucm-imp-1251su3/cucm_m_about-this-release.html#concept_297A520DF0A0B5830F2B916C4CBC88E3



Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[Matthew Loraditch]

So An update to this. After tac added a temp license to our system with the 
issue the error cleared AND it’s no longer reporting admin accounts with admin 
rights AND reporting rights as premium license consumers.

I had a call with some BU people about the 12.5 SU1 EFT and I brought this up 
and they said admin rights should not use a license on a flex install.

As I have their ear if anyone else is willing to confirm or test on their 12.5 
Flex system, let me know!


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of Matthew 
Loraditch
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 6:00 PM
To: Brian Meade 
Cc: Cisco VoIP Group 
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[EXTERNAL]

Premium Flex or a mix ? and you only have built in admin or sync’d users are 
also admin?


Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
From: Brian Meade mailto:bmead...@vt.edu>>
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 5:56 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>
Cc: Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com>>; 
Cisco VoIP Group mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[EXTERNAL]

I've got a customer on 12.5 UCCX with Flex licensing and I'm not seeing that 
behavior.  Only when someone logs in to Finesse does it increase counters on 
the licensing page in UCCX.

On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 2:19 PM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
He is not, I didn’t get further response during the webcast. If you are 
comfortable DM’ing or Teamsing me his info, please do.


Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
From: Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway%2bcisco-v...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 1:46 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>
Cc: Pawlowski, Adam mailto:aj...@buffalo.edu>>; Cisco VoIP 
Group mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[EXTERNAL]

Thanks for the action and the update.  Is the Flex PM, Kevin McPartlan, on that 
webcast?

On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 11:59 AM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
I’m on a partner webcast now and asking about this. If you have premium flex 
licensing even the built-in admin requires a license!  I’m beating them up on 
this as it’s still not documented anywhere and I’ve got customers on flex that 
will have issues when upgrading to 12.5


Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
From: Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway%2bcisco-v...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 1:22 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>
Cc: Pawlowski, Adam mailto:aj...@buffalo.edu>>; Cisco VoIP 
Group mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[EXTERNAL]

Thank you for the testing you're doing, and I look forward to the results.

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 9:57 AM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
So I was basing this on documentation and my colleague saying we were good 
after our admin account was de-supervisored

However I am seeing contrary information in the one 12.5 install we have. CCX 
doesn’t have an auto update button/function so I’m waiting for things to cycle 
to verify

Further though the documentation does not say this at all:
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cust_contact/contact_center/crs/express_12_5/features/guide/uccx_b_125features-guide/uccx_b_125features-guide_chapter_0111.html

Nor the ordering guide (partners only): 
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collater

Re: [cisco-voip] OAuth for Unity Connection/Office 365

[Matthew Loraditch]

Oh god, I never replied to this in April.

I posted here what I did that made things work:
https://community.cisco.com/t5/collaboration-applications/oauth-for-office-365-unity-connection-12-5-su2/m-p/4098350#M43230


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Anthony Holloway 
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 12:14 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
Cc: Dave Goodwin ; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] OAuth for Unity Connection/Office 365

[EXTERNAL]

Looks like CUCM 11.5 SU8 addresses oauth with o365.  Did you see that?

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 3:02 PM Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway%2bcisco-v...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:
Matthew, What did you end up learning on this effort?

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 10:10 AM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
I did see that this morning and it fueled my confusion as it’s not needed (or 
useful) when using oauth and the EWS APIs.

They added OAuth because Microsoft is disabling the basic authentication that 
the Autodiscover and the old method used to use.

Really just hoping to get some insight from someone and hope to hear it’s half 
baked and will be finished later and/or I found an issue and it’ll get fixed. 
Will work with TAC eventually if I don’t get any feedback


Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
[cid:image005.jpg@01D65C3F.CC179180]

From: Dave Goodwin mailto:dave.good...@december.net>>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 10:32 AM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] OAuth for Unity Connection/Office 365

[EXTERNAL]

Matthew, yes it is pretty new, and I have no setup with which to experiment or 
test, but have you read this section of the CUC 12.x doc? It seems to indicate 
CUC will still use Auto Discovery and in Step 6 it shows how to enable that in 
O365.
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/connection/12x/unified_messaging/b_12xcucumgx/b_12xcucumgx_chapter_01.html#ID-2370-05f5

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 10:04 AM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
This just came out yesterday so this is more directed for anyone lurking at 
Cisco, but how is this supposed to work?

Our UM has been disabled for months because of MS security requirements for 
resellers that broke the old way so I quickly installed this in my test lab to 
see if it will fix my issue.

According to all the MS documentation there should be no need to use the old 
Autodiscover, etc that Unity was using. You just connect to the default 
outlook.office365.com<http://outlook.office365.com> EWS url and use your oauth 
info and boom.

However, the fields for the old account are still there and mandatory and all 
the test options are going through and failing Autodiscover…

If I look at the Mailbox Sync Logs I don’t see any evidence it’s trying to use 
Oauth/EWS.

Going down the rabbit hole so everyone else doesn’t have to!












Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
[cid:image005.jpg@01D65C3F.CC179180]
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] Creating Jabber for non-existent phones

[Matthew Loraditch]

I would add, why not just bulk add jabber for everyone who is licensed for it 
and then include in your normal onboarding? Does someone care if it’s 
configured and not used?


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of Anthony 
Holloway
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 4:00 PM
To: Lelio Fulgenzi 
Cc: cisco-voip voyp list 
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Creating Jabber for non-existent phones

[EXTERNAL]

Forgive my ignorance here, since I do not do day 2 ops work often (thus quick 
add's set backs are not top of mind), I mostly focus on new deployments, which 
typically involve BAT, so what is the trouble/uniqueness in Jabber CSF devices 
versus a physical phone?  Also, how come Option A doesn't mention the Jabber 
piece?  Is that implied that you would come back around and add Jabber 
afterwards, like you would do in option B, post DN add?

On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 1:07 PM Lelio Fulgenzi 
mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>> wrote:

Hello all. Looking for feedback and opinions and caveats.

Right now, we’re deploying Jabber only to those with phones/DNs. But, we need 
to start deploying Jabber for those individuals without phones/DNs.

Our SOPs include using Quick Add feature. (Thanks a million time Brian Meade 
for the pointer).

My choices so far, to address Jabber for new those without phones:

(a) Create a fake hardware phone first. This has many benefits, namely, all 
SOPs remain the same. Hardware phone would be deleted afterwards.

(b) Use Directory Number admin page to create/update a DN first, then use Quick 
Add page to assign DN to user accordingly and then click manage devices and 
follow remaining SOP steps.

(c) create line templates and use those when creating new extensions under 
quick add. The issue with this is we have so many combinations, I’d need a lot 
of templates.

I’m leaning towards (b), since it gives me the best of both worlds.

Thoughts?

Lelio

Sent from my iPhone
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[Matthew Loraditch]

Premium Flex or a mix ? and you only have built in admin or sync’d users are 
also admin?


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Brian Meade 
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 5:56 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
Cc: Anthony Holloway ; Cisco VoIP Group 

Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[EXTERNAL]

I've got a customer on 12.5 UCCX with Flex licensing and I'm not seeing that 
behavior.  Only when someone logs in to Finesse does it increase counters on 
the licensing page in UCCX.

On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 2:19 PM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
He is not, I didn’t get further response during the webcast. If you are 
comfortable DM’ing or Teamsing me his info, please do.


Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
From: Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway%2bcisco-v...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 1:46 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>
Cc: Pawlowski, Adam mailto:aj...@buffalo.edu>>; Cisco VoIP 
Group mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[EXTERNAL]

Thanks for the action and the update.  Is the Flex PM, Kevin McPartlan, on that 
webcast?

On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 11:59 AM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
I’m on a partner webcast now and asking about this. If you have premium flex 
licensing even the built-in admin requires a license!  I’m beating them up on 
this as it’s still not documented anywhere and I’ve got customers on flex that 
will have issues when upgrading to 12.5


Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
From: Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway%2bcisco-v...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 1:22 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>
Cc: Pawlowski, Adam mailto:aj...@buffalo.edu>>; Cisco VoIP 
Group mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[EXTERNAL]

Thank you for the testing you're doing, and I look forward to the results.

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 9:57 AM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
So I was basing this on documentation and my colleague saying we were good 
after our admin account was de-supervisored

However I am seeing contrary information in the one 12.5 install we have. CCX 
doesn’t have an auto update button/function so I’m waiting for things to cycle 
to verify

Further though the documentation does not say this at all:
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cust_contact/contact_center/crs/express_12_5/features/guide/uccx_b_125features-guide/uccx_b_125features-guide_chapter_0111.html

Nor the ordering guide (partners only): 
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/customer-collaboration/guide-c07-741219.html

And that is some garbage if true and needs to be fixed.



Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
From: Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway%2bcisco-v...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 10:29 AM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>
Cc: Pawlowski, Adam mailto:aj...@buffalo.edu>>; Cisco VoIP 
Group mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[EXTERNAL]

Matthew,

I just got word from the Flex-CC owner, Kevin McPartlan, that Admins do require 
a Premium license.  Can you prove this wrong in some way?

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:36 PM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
A-FLEX-CC has Standard and Premium Licenses.

These are different from non flex licensing.

Standard is inbound age

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[Matthew Loraditch]

He is not, I didn’t get further response during the webcast. If you are 
comfortable DM’ing or Teamsing me his info, please do.


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Anthony Holloway 
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 1:46 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
Cc: Pawlowski, Adam ; Cisco VoIP Group 

Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[EXTERNAL]

Thanks for the action and the update.  Is the Flex PM, Kevin McPartlan, on that 
webcast?

On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 11:59 AM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
I’m on a partner webcast now and asking about this. If you have premium flex 
licensing even the built-in admin requires a license!  I’m beating them up on 
this as it’s still not documented anywhere and I’ve got customers on flex that 
will have issues when upgrading to 12.5


Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
From: Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway%2bcisco-v...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 1:22 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>
Cc: Pawlowski, Adam mailto:aj...@buffalo.edu>>; Cisco VoIP 
Group mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[EXTERNAL]

Thank you for the testing you're doing, and I look forward to the results.

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 9:57 AM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
So I was basing this on documentation and my colleague saying we were good 
after our admin account was de-supervisored

However I am seeing contrary information in the one 12.5 install we have. CCX 
doesn’t have an auto update button/function so I’m waiting for things to cycle 
to verify

Further though the documentation does not say this at all:
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cust_contact/contact_center/crs/express_12_5/features/guide/uccx_b_125features-guide/uccx_b_125features-guide_chapter_0111.html

Nor the ordering guide (partners only): 
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/customer-collaboration/guide-c07-741219.html

And that is some garbage if true and needs to be fixed.



Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
From: Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway%2bcisco-v...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 10:29 AM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>
Cc: Pawlowski, Adam mailto:aj...@buffalo.edu>>; Cisco VoIP 
Group mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[EXTERNAL]

Matthew,

I just got word from the Flex-CC owner, Kevin McPartlan, that Admins do require 
a Premium license.  Can you prove this wrong in some way?

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:36 PM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
A-FLEX-CC has Standard and Premium Licenses.

These are different from non flex licensing.

Standard is inbound agent licensing essentially

Premium is supervisor licensing,   email/chat agents, outbound campaign 
licensing.

2 CTI ports per agent/license.

Admin still works no specific license needed as long as admin isn’t also 
supervisor/agent, HA is included, outside of the 3 features above, it’s like 
perpetual premium with SQL, etc included.

See here for specifics:

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/unified-communications/cisco-collaboration-flex-plan/datasheet-c78-741220.html
 Table 8.


License enforcement is only in UCCX 12.5. Older versions don’t know and you end 
up with Perpetual Premium with HA feature set but with a license that expires 
at the end of your contract term.

Suffice it to say if you don’t need 12.5 features you could ride the gravy 
train for a while.

Licensing is still concurrent users.

There are grace periods so if you need to test something you can make the admin 
a supervisor or something w/o breakage, just remember to remove later.

If your customer has on-prem premium, with perpetual trade-in credits you are 
close to the cost of SWSS and should probably try and get them to move.




Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Enginee

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[Matthew Loraditch]

I’m on a partner webcast now and asking about this. If you have premium flex 
licensing even the built-in admin requires a license!  I’m beating them up on 
this as it’s still not documented anywhere and I’ve got customers on flex that 
will have issues when upgrading to 12.5


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Anthony Holloway 
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 1:22 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
Cc: Pawlowski, Adam ; Cisco VoIP Group 

Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[EXTERNAL]

Thank you for the testing you're doing, and I look forward to the results.

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 9:57 AM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
So I was basing this on documentation and my colleague saying we were good 
after our admin account was de-supervisored

However I am seeing contrary information in the one 12.5 install we have. CCX 
doesn’t have an auto update button/function so I’m waiting for things to cycle 
to verify

Further though the documentation does not say this at all:
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cust_contact/contact_center/crs/express_12_5/features/guide/uccx_b_125features-guide/uccx_b_125features-guide_chapter_0111.html

Nor the ordering guide (partners only): 
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/customer-collaboration/guide-c07-741219.html

And that is some garbage if true and needs to be fixed.



Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
From: Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway%2bcisco-v...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 10:29 AM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>
Cc: Pawlowski, Adam mailto:aj...@buffalo.edu>>; Cisco VoIP 
Group mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[EXTERNAL]

Matthew,

I just got word from the Flex-CC owner, Kevin McPartlan, that Admins do require 
a Premium license.  Can you prove this wrong in some way?

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:36 PM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
A-FLEX-CC has Standard and Premium Licenses.

These are different from non flex licensing.

Standard is inbound agent licensing essentially

Premium is supervisor licensing,   email/chat agents, outbound campaign 
licensing.

2 CTI ports per agent/license.

Admin still works no specific license needed as long as admin isn’t also 
supervisor/agent, HA is included, outside of the 3 features above, it’s like 
perpetual premium with SQL, etc included.

See here for specifics:

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/unified-communications/cisco-collaboration-flex-plan/datasheet-c78-741220.html
 Table 8.


License enforcement is only in UCCX 12.5. Older versions don’t know and you end 
up with Perpetual Premium with HA feature set but with a license that expires 
at the end of your contract term.

Suffice it to say if you don’t need 12.5 features you could ride the gravy 
train for a while.

Licensing is still concurrent users.

There are grace periods so if you need to test something you can make the admin 
a supervisor or something w/o breakage, just remember to remove later.

If your customer has on-prem premium, with perpetual trade-in credits you are 
close to the cost of SWSS and should probably try and get them to move.




Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Anthony Holloway
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 5:21 PM
To: Pawlowski, Adam mailto:aj...@buffalo.edu>>
Cc: Cisco VoIP Group 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[EXTERNAL]

But seriously, a premium license to administer the system?  Does this include 
the appadministrator account too?  Do you have first hand experience with it?

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:16 PM Pawlowski, Adam 
mailto:aj...@buffalo.edu>> wrote:
This was the information I heard as well, and the purchase quantities are based 
on feature utilization and concurrency.



From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.neth

Re: [cisco-voip] CAD to Finesse Utility

[Matthew Loraditch]

Go figure this would be the customer with no custom reason codes, no custom 
workflows and one special field in enterprise data.  I think I’ll just handle 
that manually. :P


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of Matthew 
Loraditch
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2020 12:08 AM
To: Charles Goldsmith 
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CAD to Finesse Utility

[EXTERNAL]

Thanks. I don’t remember how much this customer has configured so we’ll see as 
I work though it tomorrow and make a call

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>

From: Charles Goldsmith mailto:w...@woka.us>>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2020 12:05:28 AM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net> 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CAD to Finesse Utility

[EXTERNAL]

A few months ago, I had contacted the author, Ryan, about 12.0 support, this 
was his reply:

"I haven’t updated the tool since the initial release. It may work, or at least 
get some of the configuration migrated over. It all depends on whether the 
Finesse API has changed since the version I wrote against vs 12.0. I’d try it 
in the lab first and see. Whatever config it migrates is config you don’t have 
to migrate and the rest you can do manually…



HTH."



Customer I was working with chose not to try it, and we migrated manually.



On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 10:14 PM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:

Does anyone know if this will still work on an upgrade from 10.6 to 12.0? It 
says it doesn’t work in 11.5 but no mention of 12.  I’m guessing not, but if 
anyone has unofficially used it, you will save me some time writing a ton of 
junk down!

Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] CAD to Finesse Utility

[Matthew Loraditch]

Thanks. I don’t remember how much this customer has configured so we’ll see as 
I work though it tomorrow and make a call

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com

From: Charles Goldsmith 
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2020 12:05:28 AM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net 
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CAD to Finesse Utility


[EXTERNAL]


A few months ago, I had contacted the author, Ryan, about 12.0 support, this 
was his reply:

"I haven’t updated the tool since the initial release. It may work, or at least 
get some of the configuration migrated over. It all depends on whether the 
Finesse API has changed since the version I wrote against vs 12.0. I’d try it 
in the lab first and see. Whatever config it migrates is config you don’t have 
to migrate and the rest you can do manually…



HTH."


Customer I was working with chose not to try it, and we migrated manually.


On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 10:14 PM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:

Does anyone know if this will still work on an upgrade from 10.6 to 12.0? It 
says it doesn’t work in 11.5 but no mention of 12.  I’m guessing not, but if 
anyone has unofficially used it, you will save me some time writing a ton of 
junk down!


Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>|  
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

[cisco-voip] CAD to Finesse Utility

[Matthew Loraditch]

Does anyone know if this will still work on an upgrade from 10.6 to 12.0? It 
says it doesn't work in 11.5 but no mention of 12.  I'm guessing not, but if 
anyone has unofficially used it, you will save me some time writing a ton of 
junk down!

Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] Migration from CUCM/UCXN/UCCX 8.5 to 12.5

[Matthew Loraditch]

We name most things by the site name or similar. If you were looking a device 
export or something it can get mighty confusing IMO if you just saw several 
columns all saying SITENAME as the values.  Easier to mix up data when you have 
non unique values.



Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Anthony Holloway 
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 3:42 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
Cc: Pawlowski, Adam ; James B ; 
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Migration from CUCM/UCXN/UCCX 8.5 to 12.5

[EXTERNAL]

Can anyone give a use case where appending or prepending the object type 
identifier on the name is helpful?  E.g., why put -css on a css at all?

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 2:19 PM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:

  1.  PT-, CSS-, etc
  2.  FQDN
  3.  My setups are always distributed. Certainly could have central if it’s 
one site.
  4.  Usually always
  5.  SIP, SIP, SIP
  6.  Unfortunately no, drives my OCD crazy. I hate lower/mixed case naming of 
devices with a passion. I’m also born of a Windows world where case never 
mattered.



Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
From: Pawlowski, Adam mailto:aj...@buffalo.edu>>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 3:08 PM
To: James B mailto:james.buchan...@gmail.com>>; 
Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway%2bcisco-v...@gmail.com>>; 
Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] Migration from CUCM/UCXN/UCCX 8.5 to 12.5

[EXTERNAL]

Sure I can fire this up


  1.  part_ , like part_local, part_ld, part_ld_privacy , etc.
  2.  FQDN, but, make sure your DNS/NTP/etc works with resiliency.
  3.  Depends on if you’re distributed, using hardware conf, transcoder cause 
you have some people on some sort of twizzler based connection using g729, etc
  4.  Yes, unless you have something on the other side that can’t handle these 
requests coming from the whole group, or again a distributed system.
  5.  SIP. MGCP is nice in a set it and forget it way, but if you want to use 
the gateway to do anything else like custom intercepts, redirection, 
hairpinning, it won’t help you. There are some features that don’t work when 
you go to SIP but whatever.
  6.  Why would you give anything an upper case hostname

From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of James B
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 2:28 PM
To: Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com>>; 
Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Migration from CUCM/UCXN/UCCX 8.5 to 12.5

I was thinking of the community configuration approach Anthony suggested and 
was thinking of the debates we’d have if we did that:


  1.  Do you use “_PT”, “PT_”, or just the site name? Same for “CSS”, “LOC”, 
and the ever-debated “RGN” or “REG”?.
  2.  FQDN or IP addresses?
  3.  Do all the media resources go into a single MRG or not?
  4.  Do we click “Run on all Nodes” for route lists and trunks or not?
  5.  MGCP, SIP, or H323 (if using PRIs)?
  6.  Can UCCX have upper-case hostnames or not?

The debates would take us so long, version 14.0 would be out, and then we’d 
have to debate about whether a “.0” versoin is stable or not or should we wait 
for “.5”? Still, could be fun!



From: Anthony Holloway<mailto:avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com>
Sent: 28 May 2020 19:15
To: Matthew Loraditch<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Migration from CUCM/UCXN/UCCX 8.5 to 12.5

Keep in mind that PCD network migrations, while awesome for CUCM, do not work 
for other products.

Typically with a project like this, you'll likely have a different approach for 
each app, and not a one size fits all solution.

With the app upgrades, you will also have to change OVA sizes (or want to in 
some cases), and at that point, it might be better to install fresh, and use 
tools like COBRAS, BAT, AXL, ADMIN API, stare & compare, etc. to get data 
exported/imported from old to new.

Or like Kent said, tell yourself it's a toshiba system, and treat it like a 
greenfield.

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 11:26 AM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
Here’s a fun one. We have taken o

Re: [cisco-voip] Migration from CUCM/UCXN/UCCX 8.5 to 12.5

[Matthew Loraditch]

  1.  PT-, CSS-, etc
  2.  FQDN
  3.  My setups are always distributed. Certainly could have central if it’s 
one site.
  4.  Usually always
  5.  SIP, SIP, SIP
  6.  Unfortunately no, drives my OCD crazy. I hate lower/mixed case naming of 
devices with a passion. I’m also born of a Windows world where case never 
mattered.



Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Pawlowski, Adam 
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 3:08 PM
To: James B ; Anthony Holloway 
; Matthew Loraditch 

Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] Migration from CUCM/UCXN/UCCX 8.5 to 12.5

[EXTERNAL]

Sure I can fire this up


  1.  part_ , like part_local, part_ld, part_ld_privacy , etc.
  2.  FQDN, but, make sure your DNS/NTP/etc works with resiliency.
  3.  Depends on if you’re distributed, using hardware conf, transcoder cause 
you have some people on some sort of twizzler based connection using g729, etc
  4.  Yes, unless you have something on the other side that can’t handle these 
requests coming from the whole group, or again a distributed system.
  5.  SIP. MGCP is nice in a set it and forget it way, but if you want to use 
the gateway to do anything else like custom intercepts, redirection, 
hairpinning, it won’t help you. There are some features that don’t work when 
you go to SIP but whatever.
  6.  Why would you give anything an upper case hostname

From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of James B
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 2:28 PM
To: Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com>>; 
Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Migration from CUCM/UCXN/UCCX 8.5 to 12.5

I was thinking of the community configuration approach Anthony suggested and 
was thinking of the debates we’d have if we did that:


  1.  Do you use “_PT”, “PT_”, or just the site name? Same for “CSS”, “LOC”, 
and the ever-debated “RGN” or “REG”?.
  2.  FQDN or IP addresses?
  3.  Do all the media resources go into a single MRG or not?
  4.  Do we click “Run on all Nodes” for route lists and trunks or not?
  5.  MGCP, SIP, or H323 (if using PRIs)?
  6.  Can UCCX have upper-case hostnames or not?

The debates would take us so long, version 14.0 would be out, and then we’d 
have to debate about whether a “.0” versoin is stable or not or should we wait 
for “.5”? Still, could be fun!



From: Anthony Holloway<mailto:avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com>
Sent: 28 May 2020 19:15
To: Matthew Loraditch<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Migration from CUCM/UCXN/UCCX 8.5 to 12.5

Keep in mind that PCD network migrations, while awesome for CUCM, do not work 
for other products.

Typically with a project like this, you'll likely have a different approach for 
each app, and not a one size fits all solution.

With the app upgrades, you will also have to change OVA sizes (or want to in 
some cases), and at that point, it might be better to install fresh, and use 
tools like COBRAS, BAT, AXL, ADMIN API, stare & compare, etc. to get data 
exported/imported from old to new.

Or like Kent said, tell yourself it's a toshiba system, and treat it like a 
greenfield.

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 11:26 AM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
Here’s a fun one. We have taken over support of these ancient servers hosted on 
Esxi 4.1 on UCS-C200-M2s!

Exact Versions are:
8.5 SU2 for CUCM/UCXN
8.5 FCS for UCCX

Each  is a pair of servers.

Have new M5s and flex licensing… need to get to 12.5..  8.5 docs are dead for 
CUCM/UCXN and 8 and 9 docs are dead for UCCX. ISOs I may need are not available 
publicly.

Also fun wrinkle the new host are across the WAN and for many logistical 
reasons are staying there. The migration to the new hosts will have to be via 
DRS or maybe PCD somehow? Not sure if the bandwidth available to get data 
across will be fast enough to finish in the allotted time period. My plan was a 
change freeze window and copy/restore the backups and then activate the new 
servers and move the subnet to the new location.

As best I can tell I need to get UCCX to SU4 of 8.5.1 then I can go to 10.6 SU3 
and then to 12x (with the fun of two CAD upgrades and then a migration to 
Finesse!)

For CUCM/UCXN I need to go to 8.6 anything and then I can go to 11.5 and then 
to 12x

I think my plan is to do the upgrades to the interim versions on the old hosts 
then migrate to the new and then finish the upgrades. The old hosts will need 
ESXi upgrades to an interim version.

Anyone have thoughts on what they would do here? This is partially depending on 
TAC being able to provide me the ISOs I will need, but I presume there is an 
archive.

In theory so

Re: [cisco-voip] Migration from CUCM/UCXN/UCCX 8.5 to 12.5

[Matthew Loraditch]

Slide 92


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Anthony Holloway 
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 2:51 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Migration from CUCM/UCXN/UCCX 8.5 to 12.5

[EXTERNAL]

Which slide says you can go direct with osadmin?

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 1:41 PM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
Interesting thing is this preso (which is not official for TAC Purposes) says I 
can go from 8.6 to 12.5 directly in OS admin, but docs say use PCD. Not going 
to try it, but nevertheless curious.


Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
From: Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway%2bcisco-v...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 2:29 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Migration from CUCM/UCXN/UCCX 8.5 to 12.5

[EXTERNAL]

Another thing, CUCM 12.5 specific, Cisco wants all of us to run through the 
Collaboration Sizing Tool every time we upgrade to 12.5 now.

See slide 13
https://www.ciscolive.com/c/dam/r/ciscolive/us/docs/2019/pdf/BRKUCC-2011.pdf

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 1:08 PM Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway%2bcisco-v...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:
Keep in mind that PCD network migrations, while awesome for CUCM, do not work 
for other products.

Typically with a project like this, you'll likely have a different approach for 
each app, and not a one size fits all solution.

With the app upgrades, you will also have to change OVA sizes (or want to in 
some cases), and at that point, it might be better to install fresh, and use 
tools like COBRAS, BAT, AXL, ADMIN API, stare & compare, etc. to get data 
exported/imported from old to new.

Or like Kent said, tell yourself it's a toshiba system, and treat it like a 
greenfield.

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 11:26 AM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
Here’s a fun one. We have taken over support of these ancient servers hosted on 
Esxi 4.1 on UCS-C200-M2s!

Exact Versions are:
8.5 SU2 for CUCM/UCXN
8.5 FCS for UCCX

Each  is a pair of servers.

Have new M5s and flex licensing… need to get to 12.5..  8.5 docs are dead for 
CUCM/UCXN and 8 and 9 docs are dead for UCCX. ISOs I may need are not available 
publicly.

Also fun wrinkle the new host are across the WAN and for many logistical 
reasons are staying there. The migration to the new hosts will have to be via 
DRS or maybe PCD somehow? Not sure if the bandwidth available to get data 
across will be fast enough to finish in the allotted time period. My plan was a 
change freeze window and copy/restore the backups and then activate the new 
servers and move the subnet to the new location.

As best I can tell I need to get UCCX to SU4 of 8.5.1 then I can go to 10.6 SU3 
and then to 12x (with the fun of two CAD upgrades and then a migration to 
Finesse!)

For CUCM/UCXN I need to go to 8.6 anything and then I can go to 11.5 and then 
to 12x

I think my plan is to do the upgrades to the interim versions on the old hosts 
then migrate to the new and then finish the upgrades. The old hosts will need 
ESXi upgrades to an interim version.

Anyone have thoughts on what they would do here? This is partially depending on 
TAC being able to provide me the ISOs I will need, but I presume there is an 
archive.

In theory some sort of PCD migration is also an option, but I’ve never done one 
and not sure how it could handle the subnet situation that will have to exist.

Welcome to my fun life!














Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] Migration from CUCM/UCXN/UCCX 8.5 to 12.5

[Matthew Loraditch]

Interesting thing is this preso (which is not official for TAC Purposes) says I 
can go from 8.6 to 12.5 directly in OS admin, but docs say use PCD. Not going 
to try it, but nevertheless curious.


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Anthony Holloway 
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 2:29 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Migration from CUCM/UCXN/UCCX 8.5 to 12.5

[EXTERNAL]

Another thing, CUCM 12.5 specific, Cisco wants all of us to run through the 
Collaboration Sizing Tool every time we upgrade to 12.5 now.

See slide 13
https://www.ciscolive.com/c/dam/r/ciscolive/us/docs/2019/pdf/BRKUCC-2011.pdf

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 1:08 PM Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway%2bcisco-v...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:
Keep in mind that PCD network migrations, while awesome for CUCM, do not work 
for other products.

Typically with a project like this, you'll likely have a different approach for 
each app, and not a one size fits all solution.

With the app upgrades, you will also have to change OVA sizes (or want to in 
some cases), and at that point, it might be better to install fresh, and use 
tools like COBRAS, BAT, AXL, ADMIN API, stare & compare, etc. to get data 
exported/imported from old to new.

Or like Kent said, tell yourself it's a toshiba system, and treat it like a 
greenfield.

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 11:26 AM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
Here’s a fun one. We have taken over support of these ancient servers hosted on 
Esxi 4.1 on UCS-C200-M2s!

Exact Versions are:
8.5 SU2 for CUCM/UCXN
8.5 FCS for UCCX

Each  is a pair of servers.

Have new M5s and flex licensing… need to get to 12.5..  8.5 docs are dead for 
CUCM/UCXN and 8 and 9 docs are dead for UCCX. ISOs I may need are not available 
publicly.

Also fun wrinkle the new host are across the WAN and for many logistical 
reasons are staying there. The migration to the new hosts will have to be via 
DRS or maybe PCD somehow? Not sure if the bandwidth available to get data 
across will be fast enough to finish in the allotted time period. My plan was a 
change freeze window and copy/restore the backups and then activate the new 
servers and move the subnet to the new location.

As best I can tell I need to get UCCX to SU4 of 8.5.1 then I can go to 10.6 SU3 
and then to 12x (with the fun of two CAD upgrades and then a migration to 
Finesse!)

For CUCM/UCXN I need to go to 8.6 anything and then I can go to 11.5 and then 
to 12x

I think my plan is to do the upgrades to the interim versions on the old hosts 
then migrate to the new and then finish the upgrades. The old hosts will need 
ESXi upgrades to an interim version.

Anyone have thoughts on what they would do here? This is partially depending on 
TAC being able to provide me the ISOs I will need, but I presume there is an 
archive.

In theory some sort of PCD migration is also an option, but I’ve never done one 
and not sure how it could handle the subnet situation that will have to exist.

Welcome to my fun life!














Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] Migration from CUCM/UCXN/UCCX 8.5 to 12.5

[Matthew Loraditch]

Free Beer to all participants at the next in person Cisco Live!


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Anthony Holloway 
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 2:02 PM
To: Kent Roberts 
Cc: Matthew Loraditch ; 
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Migration from CUCM/UCXN/UCCX 8.5 to 12.5

[EXTERNAL]

Or turn it into the first cisco-voip community project, and we all jump in and 
help?  I call translation patterns!

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:57 PM Kent Roberts 
mailto:k...@fredf.org>> wrote:

Might be less work to just start over…..



On May 28, 2020, at 10:25 AM, Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:

Here’s a fun one. We have taken over support of these ancient servers hosted on 
Esxi 4.1 on UCS-C200-M2s!

Exact Versions are:
8.5 SU2 for CUCM/UCXN
8.5 FCS for UCCX

Each  is a pair of servers.

Have new M5s and flex licensing… need to get to 12.5..  8.5 docs are dead for 
CUCM/UCXN and 8 and 9 docs are dead for UCCX. ISOs I may need are not available 
publicly.

Also fun wrinkle the new host are across the WAN and for many logistical 
reasons are staying there. The migration to the new hosts will have to be via 
DRS or maybe PCD somehow? Not sure if the bandwidth available to get data 
across will be fast enough to finish in the allotted time period. My plan was a 
change freeze window and copy/restore the backups and then activate the new 
servers and move the subnet to the new location.

As best I can tell I need to get UCCX to SU4 of 8.5.1 then I can go to 10.6 SU3 
and then to 12x (with the fun of two CAD upgrades and then a migration to 
Finesse!)

For CUCM/UCXN I need to go to 8.6 anything and then I can go to 11.5 and then 
to 12x

I think my plan is to do the upgrades to the interim versions on the old hosts 
then migrate to the new and then finish the upgrades. The old hosts will need 
ESXi upgrades to an interim version.

Anyone have thoughts on what they would do here? This is partially depending on 
TAC being able to provide me the ISOs I will need, but I presume there is an 
archive.

In theory some sort of PCD migration is also an option, but I’ve never done one 
and not sure how it could handle the subnet situation that will have to exist.

Welcome to my fun life!














Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

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

Re: [cisco-voip] Migration from CUCM/UCXN/UCCX 8.5 to 12.5

[Matthew Loraditch]

Ha, maybe for a larger amount of servers, but the amount of time to read, 
interpret/document, have meetings with the customer to go over, and finally 
program it all again, would be astronomically longer. There are I think 8 
different sites/flows in the system. That’s all active work. Most of the 
upgrade/migration time is just waiting for things.

Although I did just remember I can COBRAS Unity Connection… been a hot minute 
since I did that but that just shaved some of my time off.

Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Kent Roberts 
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 1:56 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Migration from CUCM/UCXN/UCCX 8.5 to 12.5

[EXTERNAL]


Might be less work to just start over…..



On May 28, 2020, at 10:25 AM, Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:

Here’s a fun one. We have taken over support of these ancient servers hosted on 
Esxi 4.1 on UCS-C200-M2s!

Exact Versions are:
8.5 SU2 for CUCM/UCXN
8.5 FCS for UCCX

Each  is a pair of servers.

Have new M5s and flex licensing… need to get to 12.5..  8.5 docs are dead for 
CUCM/UCXN and 8 and 9 docs are dead for UCCX. ISOs I may need are not available 
publicly.

Also fun wrinkle the new host are across the WAN and for many logistical 
reasons are staying there. The migration to the new hosts will have to be via 
DRS or maybe PCD somehow? Not sure if the bandwidth available to get data 
across will be fast enough to finish in the allotted time period. My plan was a 
change freeze window and copy/restore the backups and then activate the new 
servers and move the subnet to the new location.

As best I can tell I need to get UCCX to SU4 of 8.5.1 then I can go to 10.6 SU3 
and then to 12x (with the fun of two CAD upgrades and then a migration to 
Finesse!)

For CUCM/UCXN I need to go to 8.6 anything and then I can go to 11.5 and then 
to 12x

I think my plan is to do the upgrades to the interim versions on the old hosts 
then migrate to the new and then finish the upgrades. The old hosts will need 
ESXi upgrades to an interim version.

Anyone have thoughts on what they would do here? This is partially depending on 
TAC being able to provide me the ISOs I will need, but I presume there is an 
archive.

In theory some sort of PCD migration is also an option, but I’ve never done one 
and not sure how it could handle the subnet situation that will have to exist.

Welcome to my fun life!














Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

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

[cisco-voip] Migration from CUCM/UCXN/UCCX 8.5 to 12.5

[Matthew Loraditch]

Here's a fun one. We have taken over support of these ancient servers hosted on 
Esxi 4.1 on UCS-C200-M2s!

Exact Versions are:
8.5 SU2 for CUCM/UCXN
8.5 FCS for UCCX

Each  is a pair of servers.

Have new M5s and flex licensing... need to get to 12.5..  8.5 docs are dead for 
CUCM/UCXN and 8 and 9 docs are dead for UCCX. ISOs I may need are not available 
publicly.

Also fun wrinkle the new host are across the WAN and for many logistical 
reasons are staying there. The migration to the new hosts will have to be via 
DRS or maybe PCD somehow? Not sure if the bandwidth available to get data 
across will be fast enough to finish in the allotted time period. My plan was a 
change freeze window and copy/restore the backups and then activate the new 
servers and move the subnet to the new location.

As best I can tell I need to get UCCX to SU4 of 8.5.1 then I can go to 10.6 SU3 
and then to 12x (with the fun of two CAD upgrades and then a migration to 
Finesse!)

For CUCM/UCXN I need to go to 8.6 anything and then I can go to 11.5 and then 
to 12x

I think my plan is to do the upgrades to the interim versions on the old hosts 
then migrate to the new and then finish the upgrades. The old hosts will need 
ESXi upgrades to an interim version.

Anyone have thoughts on what they would do here? This is partially depending on 
TAC being able to provide me the ISOs I will need, but I presume there is an 
archive.

In theory some sort of PCD migration is also an option, but I've never done one 
and not sure how it could handle the subnet situation that will have to exist.

Welcome to my fun life!














Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX upgrade versions

[Matthew Loraditch]

If you have to build a new install, I would go to at least 12.0 as there are 
GUI changes in that version to Finesse and then you can avoid that change down 
the road.

I’ve not used on demand recording so I can’t speak to that.


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of Andy Carse
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2020 11:03 AM
To: Cisco VoIP List 
Subject: [cisco-voip] UCCX upgrade versions

[EXTERNAL]

Hi,
I'm going to ask a probably stupid question but it's been awhile since I had to 
do a UCCX Upgrade.

So what is the "go to" version of UCCX these days?
I'm currently on 10.6(SU3) as its the last CAD version.
So now I need to bring on Finesse which doesn't seem too difficult albeit its 
an old version on our system.
It will be a new install as I can't break the existing setup on purpose.
One issue I think I will have is on demand call recording which was relatively 
straight forward with CAD
and the built in bridge on the handset, but I don't think that work with 
Finesse from what I can see from Google searches, unless WFO comes into the mix.
We have a max of 20 agents logged in at any one time.

Any pointers for the path to tread would be appreciated.

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

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[Matthew Loraditch]

So I was basing this on documentation and my colleague saying we were good 
after our admin account was de-supervisored

However I am seeing contrary information in the one 12.5 install we have. CCX 
doesn’t have an auto update button/function so I’m waiting for things to cycle 
to verify

Further though the documentation does not say this at all:
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cust_contact/contact_center/crs/express_12_5/features/guide/uccx_b_125features-guide/uccx_b_125features-guide_chapter_0111.html

Nor the ordering guide (partners only): 
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/customer-collaboration/guide-c07-741219.html

And that is some garbage if true and needs to be fixed.



Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Anthony Holloway 
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 10:29 AM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
Cc: Pawlowski, Adam ; Cisco VoIP Group 

Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[EXTERNAL]

Matthew,

I just got word from the Flex-CC owner, Kevin McPartlan, that Admins do require 
a Premium license.  Can you prove this wrong in some way?

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:36 PM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
A-FLEX-CC has Standard and Premium Licenses.

These are different from non flex licensing.

Standard is inbound agent licensing essentially

Premium is supervisor licensing,   email/chat agents, outbound campaign 
licensing.

2 CTI ports per agent/license.

Admin still works no specific license needed as long as admin isn’t also 
supervisor/agent, HA is included, outside of the 3 features above, it’s like 
perpetual premium with SQL, etc included.

See here for specifics:

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/unified-communications/cisco-collaboration-flex-plan/datasheet-c78-741220.html
 Table 8.


License enforcement is only in UCCX 12.5. Older versions don’t know and you end 
up with Perpetual Premium with HA feature set but with a license that expires 
at the end of your contract term.

Suffice it to say if you don’t need 12.5 features you could ride the gravy 
train for a while.

Licensing is still concurrent users.

There are grace periods so if you need to test something you can make the admin 
a supervisor or something w/o breakage, just remember to remove later.

If your customer has on-prem premium, with perpetual trade-in credits you are 
close to the cost of SWSS and should probably try and get them to move.




Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Anthony Holloway
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 5:21 PM
To: Pawlowski, Adam mailto:aj...@buffalo.edu>>
Cc: Cisco VoIP Group 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[EXTERNAL]

But seriously, a premium license to administer the system?  Does this include 
the appadministrator account too?  Do you have first hand experience with it?

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:16 PM Pawlowski, Adam 
mailto:aj...@buffalo.edu>> wrote:
This was the information I heard as well, and the purchase quantities are based 
on feature utilization and concurrency.



From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Brian Meade
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 5:07 PM
To: Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway%2bcisco-v...@gmail.com>>
Cc: Cisco VoIP Group 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

Pretty sure when buying as A-Flex-CC that it always just gives you Premium 
licensing on the CCX side.  Had this cause an issue with a customer that was 
staying on Enhanced for the extra CTI ports for many years.

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:23 PM Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway%2bcisco-v...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:
All,

Anyone already deal with this themselves?  I am reading/being told something I 
cannot swallow as the truth, because it seems so ridiculous.

I am being told that you need a Premium license to even login as a Supervisor 
at all.  Like, not for extra functionality (silent monitoring), but just as a 
basic license requirement to even sign in.

Also, I am being told a Premium license is required for Administrative users 
too.  Like, even the app admin account.  So what, completing a fresh install 
now requires a Premium license?

Are either of these true?  Can you confirm from your own tests that this is in 
fact how Flex works in UCCX on-prem?
__

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[Matthew Loraditch]

I mean I’d imagine the demand is just not there. Lots of places may not have 
contact centers and/or may need UCCE as well. It doesn’t make sense for a non 
core telephony feature to be included. It’s also almost always going to be at a 
much lesser seat count than the overall company seat count.


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Lelio Fulgenzi 
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 9:14 AM
To: Myron Young 
Cc: Matthew Loraditch ; Cisco VoIP Group 

Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[EXTERNAL]

Ok. Thanks for confirming. Not sure why they have yet to move that into the 
suite. ☹

From: Myron Young mailto:mdavid_yo...@hotmail.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 9:11 AM
To: Lelio Fulgenzi mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>>
Cc: Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>; 
Cisco VoIP Group mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph. Do not 
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the 
content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to 
ith...@uoguelph.ca<mailto:ith...@uoguelph.ca>

Its still a separate pricing for UCCX. Collab is for call manager, unity, CER, 
SRST, CUAC and some other stuff with the option to add on Webex calling

On May 12, 2020, at 9:07 AM, Lelio Fulgenzi 
mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>> wrote:

So, you found that UCCx is now included in the Collab EA suite? Or are you 
still being priced separately for UCCx?

From: Myron Young mailto:mdavid_yo...@hotmail.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 8:18 AM
To: Lelio Fulgenzi mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>>
Cc: Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>; 
Cisco VoIP Group mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph. Do not 
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the 
content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to 
ith...@uoguelph.ca<mailto:ith...@uoguelph.ca>

Yes, I’m going through the analysis right now to present benefit of going EA 
instead of yearly Smartnet for our Call Manager and UCCX licensing and the cost 
difference makes it really hard to say no when you look at the numbers over 3 
or 5 year period


On May 11, 2020, at 8:20 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi 
mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>> wrote:
 After all that I want to ask...

Is UCCx included in EA yet? Or still separate.


Sent from my iPhone


On May 11, 2020, at 8:03 PM, Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph. Do not 
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the 
content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to 
ith...@uoguelph.ca<mailto:ith...@uoguelph.ca>

A port is a port.

Chat/Email and Advanced Outbound Campaigns (predictive/progressive dialing) 
require Flex Premium so agents doing those functions would need premium.




Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>

<https://facebook.com/heliontech>

<https://twitter.com/heliontech>

<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>

From: Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 7:11 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>
Cc: Pawlowski, Adam mailto:aj...@buffalo.edu>>; Cisco VoIP 
Group mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[EXTERNAL]

Why did they have to borrow the same names for the licensing levels?  It's like 
when Cisco decided to call UCCX CAD+Finesse Mixed mode, while on CUCM mixed 
mode already meant secure communications.  Anyway.

Ok, so, a port is a port in Flex?  There is no concept of a premium port or a 
standard port then?  Any kind of inbound port can do any kind of feature?  The 
only licensing levels are for Agent/Supervisor capabilities?

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 6:07 PM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
You need to dissociate flex std/prem from L-CCX std/pre. Every feature on flex 
is the equivalent of the L-CCX premium level from a capabilities standpoint.

Does that make sense?

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[Matthew Loraditch]

I don’t know anything about EAs, don’t have anyone big enough to sell them to.


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Lelio Fulgenzi 
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 8:19 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
Cc: Anthony Holloway ; Cisco VoIP Group 

Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[EXTERNAL]

After all that I want to ask...

Is UCCx included in EA yet? Or still separate.


Sent from my iPhone


On May 11, 2020, at 8:03 PM, Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph. Do not 
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the 
content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to 
ith...@uoguelph.ca<mailto:ith...@uoguelph.ca>

A port is a port.

Chat/Email and Advanced Outbound Campaigns (predictive/progressive dialing) 
require Flex Premium so agents doing those functions would need premium.




Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>

<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
<https://facebook.com/heliontech>

<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
<https://twitter.com/heliontech>

<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>

From: Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 7:11 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>
Cc: Pawlowski, Adam mailto:aj...@buffalo.edu>>; Cisco VoIP 
Group mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[EXTERNAL]

Why did they have to borrow the same names for the licensing levels?  It's like 
when Cisco decided to call UCCX CAD+Finesse Mixed mode, while on CUCM mixed 
mode already meant secure communications.  Anyway.

Ok, so, a port is a port in Flex?  There is no concept of a premium port or a 
standard port then?  Any kind of inbound port can do any kind of feature?  The 
only licensing levels are for Agent/Supervisor capabilities?

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 6:07 PM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
You need to dissociate flex std/prem from L-CCX std/pre. Every feature on flex 
is the equivalent of the L-CCX premium level from a capabilities standpoint.

Does that make sense?

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>

<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
<https://facebook.com/heliontech>

<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
<https://twitter.com/heliontech>

<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>


From: Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway%2bcisco-v...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 7:03:47 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>
Cc: Pawlowski, Adam mailto:aj...@buffalo.edu>>; Cisco VoIP 
Group mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[EXTERNAL]

My man!  Always coming through!  So, the Supervisor one is true but the admin 
one is bogus, right?  I mean, about the Premium requirement for each.

So, what is still confusing to me is, in the past, the Premium seat also got 
you 2 premium IVR ports.  Does a standard flex seat get you 2 standard ivr 
ports?  Thus, a mized std/pre felx deal is going to net you a mixed std/pre 
port solution?  How does that work?

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:36 PM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:

A-FLEX-CC has Standard and Premium Licenses.



These are different from non flex licensing.



Standard is inbound agent licensing essentially



Premium is supervisor licensing,   email/chat agents, outbound campaign 
licensing.



2 CTI ports per agent/license.



Admin still works no specific license needed as long as admin isn’t also 
supervisor/agent, HA is included, outside of the 3 features above, it’s like 
perpetual premium with SQL, etc included.



See here for specifics:



https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/unified-communications/cisco-collaboration-flex-plan/datasheet-c78-741220.html
 Table 8.





License enforcement is only in UCCX 12.5. Older versions don’t know and you end 
up with Perpetual Premium

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[Matthew Loraditch]

A port is a port.

Chat/Email and Advanced Outbound Campaigns (predictive/progressive dialing) 
require Flex Premium so agents doing those functions would need premium.




Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Anthony Holloway 
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 7:11 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
Cc: Pawlowski, Adam ; Cisco VoIP Group 

Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[EXTERNAL]

Why did they have to borrow the same names for the licensing levels?  It's like 
when Cisco decided to call UCCX CAD+Finesse Mixed mode, while on CUCM mixed 
mode already meant secure communications.  Anyway.

Ok, so, a port is a port in Flex?  There is no concept of a premium port or a 
standard port then?  Any kind of inbound port can do any kind of feature?  The 
only licensing levels are for Agent/Supervisor capabilities?

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 6:07 PM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
You need to dissociate flex std/prem from L-CCX std/pre. Every feature on flex 
is the equivalent of the L-CCX premium level from a capabilities standpoint.

Does that make sense?

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>

From: Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway%2bcisco-v...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 7:03:47 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>
Cc: Pawlowski, Adam mailto:aj...@buffalo.edu>>; Cisco VoIP 
Group mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[EXTERNAL]

My man!  Always coming through!  So, the Supervisor one is true but the admin 
one is bogus, right?  I mean, about the Premium requirement for each.

So, what is still confusing to me is, in the past, the Premium seat also got 
you 2 premium IVR ports.  Does a standard flex seat get you 2 standard ivr 
ports?  Thus, a mized std/pre felx deal is going to net you a mixed std/pre 
port solution?  How does that work?

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:36 PM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:

A-FLEX-CC has Standard and Premium Licenses.



These are different from non flex licensing.



Standard is inbound agent licensing essentially



Premium is supervisor licensing,   email/chat agents, outbound campaign 
licensing.



2 CTI ports per agent/license.



Admin still works no specific license needed as long as admin isn’t also 
supervisor/agent, HA is included, outside of the 3 features above, it’s like 
perpetual premium with SQL, etc included.



See here for specifics:



https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/unified-communications/cisco-collaboration-flex-plan/datasheet-c78-741220.html
 Table 8.





License enforcement is only in UCCX 12.5. Older versions don’t know and you end 
up with Perpetual Premium with HA feature set but with a license that expires 
at the end of your contract term.



Suffice it to say if you don’t need 12.5 features you could ride the gravy 
train for a while.



Licensing is still concurrent users.



There are grace periods so if you need to test something you can make the admin 
a supervisor or something w/o breakage, just remember to remove later.



If your customer has on-prem premium, with perpetual trade-in credits you are 
close to the cost of SWSS and should probably try and get them to move.







Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>

From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Anthony Holloway
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 5:21 PM
To: Pawlowski, Adam mailto:aj...@buffalo.edu>>
Cc: Cisco VoIP Group 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing



[EXTERNAL]



But seriously, a premium license to administer the system?  Does this include 
the appadministrator account too?  Do you have first hand experience with it?



On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:16 PM Pawlowski, Adam 
mailto:aj...@buffalo.edu>> wrote:

This was the information I heard as well, and the purchase quantities are based 
o

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[Matthew Loraditch]

You need to dissociate flex std/prem from L-CCX std/pre. Every feature on flex 
is the equivalent of the L-CCX premium level from a capabilities standpoint.

Does that make sense?

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com

From: Anthony Holloway 
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 7:03:47 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
Cc: Pawlowski, Adam ; Cisco VoIP Group 

Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing


[EXTERNAL]


My man!  Always coming through!  So, the Supervisor one is true but the admin 
one is bogus, right?  I mean, about the Premium requirement for each.

So, what is still confusing to me is, in the past, the Premium seat also got 
you 2 premium IVR ports.  Does a standard flex seat get you 2 standard ivr 
ports?  Thus, a mized std/pre felx deal is going to net you a mixed std/pre 
port solution?  How does that work?

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:36 PM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:

A-FLEX-CC has Standard and Premium Licenses.



These are different from non flex licensing.



Standard is inbound agent licensing essentially



Premium is supervisor licensing,   email/chat agents, outbound campaign 
licensing.



2 CTI ports per agent/license.



Admin still works no specific license needed as long as admin isn’t also 
supervisor/agent, HA is included, outside of the 3 features above, it’s like 
perpetual premium with SQL, etc included.



See here for specifics:



https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/unified-communications/cisco-collaboration-flex-plan/datasheet-c78-741220.html
 Table 8.





License enforcement is only in UCCX 12.5. Older versions don’t know and you end 
up with Perpetual Premium with HA feature set but with a license that expires 
at the end of your contract term.



Suffice it to say if you don’t need 12.5 features you could ride the gravy 
train for a while.



Licensing is still concurrent users.



There are grace periods so if you need to test something you can make the admin 
a supervisor or something w/o breakage, just remember to remove later.



If your customer has on-prem premium, with perpetual trade-in credits you are 
close to the cost of SWSS and should probably try and get them to move.








Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>|  
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>

From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Anthony Holloway
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 5:21 PM
To: Pawlowski, Adam mailto:aj...@buffalo.edu>>
Cc: Cisco VoIP Group 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing



[EXTERNAL]



But seriously, a premium license to administer the system?  Does this include 
the appadministrator account too?  Do you have first hand experience with it?



On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:16 PM Pawlowski, Adam 
mailto:aj...@buffalo.edu>> wrote:

This was the information I heard as well, and the purchase quantities are based 
on feature utilization and concurrency.







From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Brian Meade
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 5:07 PM
To: Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway%2bcisco-v...@gmail.com>>
Cc: Cisco VoIP Group 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing



Pretty sure when buying as A-Flex-CC that it always just gives you Premium 
licensing on the CCX side.  Had this cause an issue with a customer that was 
staying on Enhanced for the extra CTI ports for many years.



On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:23 PM Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway%2bcisco-v...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:

All,



Anyone already deal with this themselves?  I am reading/being told something I 
cannot swallow as the truth, because it seems so ridiculous.



I am being told that you need a Premium license to even login as a Supervisor 
at all.  Like, not for extra functionality (silent monitoring), but just as a 
basic license requirement to even sign in.



Also, I am being told a Premium license is required for Administrative users 
too.  Like, even the app admin account.  So what, completing a fresh install 
now requires a Premium license?



Are either of these true?  Can you confirm from your own tests that this is in 
fact how Flex works in UCCX on-prem?

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

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[Matthew Loraditch]

A-FLEX-CC has Standard and Premium Licenses.

These are different from non flex licensing.

Standard is inbound agent licensing essentially

Premium is supervisor licensing,   email/chat agents, outbound campaign 
licensing.

2 CTI ports per agent/license.

Admin still works no specific license needed as long as admin isn’t also 
supervisor/agent, HA is included, outside of the 3 features above, it’s like 
perpetual premium with SQL, etc included.

See here for specifics:

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/unified-communications/cisco-collaboration-flex-plan/datasheet-c78-741220.html
 Table 8.


License enforcement is only in UCCX 12.5. Older versions don’t know and you end 
up with Perpetual Premium with HA feature set but with a license that expires 
at the end of your contract term.

Suffice it to say if you don’t need 12.5 features you could ride the gravy 
train for a while.

Licensing is still concurrent users.

There are grace periods so if you need to test something you can make the admin 
a supervisor or something w/o breakage, just remember to remove later.

If your customer has on-prem premium, with perpetual trade-in credits you are 
close to the cost of SWSS and should probably try and get them to move.




Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of Anthony 
Holloway
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 5:21 PM
To: Pawlowski, Adam 
Cc: Cisco VoIP Group 
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

[EXTERNAL]

But seriously, a premium license to administer the system?  Does this include 
the appadministrator account too?  Do you have first hand experience with it?

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:16 PM Pawlowski, Adam 
mailto:aj...@buffalo.edu>> wrote:
This was the information I heard as well, and the purchase quantities are based 
on feature utilization and concurrency.



From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Brian Meade
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 5:07 PM
To: Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway%2bcisco-v...@gmail.com>>
Cc: Cisco VoIP Group 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Flex Licensing

Pretty sure when buying as A-Flex-CC that it always just gives you Premium 
licensing on the CCX side.  Had this cause an issue with a customer that was 
staying on Enhanced for the extra CTI ports for many years.

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:23 PM Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway%2bcisco-v...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:
All,

Anyone already deal with this themselves?  I am reading/being told something I 
cannot swallow as the truth, because it seems so ridiculous.

I am being told that you need a Premium license to even login as a Supervisor 
at all.  Like, not for extra functionality (silent monitoring), but just as a 
basic license requirement to even sign in.

Also, I am being told a Premium license is required for Administrative users 
too.  Like, even the app admin account.  So what, completing a fresh install 
now requires a Premium license?

Are either of these true?  Can you confirm from your own tests that this is in 
fact how Flex works in UCCX on-prem?
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX 12.5(1) Docker Engine Not Running

[Matthew Loraditch]

Was mostly curious and had the RAM, couldn’t get it working and documentation 
is sparse to put it mildly so left it alone for now.


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Anthony Holloway 
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 4:44 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
Cc: Cisco VoIP Group 
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX 12.5(1) Docker Engine Not Running

[EXTERNAL]

No, good point.  I'm on the 100 Agent OVA without cloud support, because, well, 
I don't have a need for that.  Seems to me like Cisco made a goof alerting on a 
service which cannot start, and will not start, due to my use of the system.  
I'll tell the TAC engineer this.  Did you configure the cloud connect?  If so, 
what are you using it for.

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 2:50 PM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
Didn’t think about that….

It’s running. Curious did you put enough RAM on for the cloud stuff to run? I’m 
wondering if it’s part of that. Mine has the RAM for the cloud services.


Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
From: Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway%2bcisco-v...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 3:45 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>
Cc: Cisco VoIP Group 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX 12.5(1) Docker Engine Not Running

[EXTERNAL]

Thanks for the reply Matt.  You could just use the web interface to see if it's 
running or not.  It's not in CCX Seviceability, just plain Seviceability, under 
Network Services.

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 2:43 PM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
If I could get RTMT to load on my one 12.5 install I’d let you know… some crazy 
java error but haven’t had time to deal with TAC on it. Happens on multiple 
PCs, Fresh RTMT installs and all.



Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Anthony Holloway
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 3:27 PM
To: Cisco VoIP Group 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: [cisco-voip] UCCX 12.5(1) Docker Engine Not Running

[EXTERNAL]

Anyone else running UCCX 12.5(1) and their Docker Engine is Not Running?

It's being caught by CriticalServicesDown and SyslogSeverityMatchFound and 
sending a lot of emails to tech support.

TAC is telling me the Docker Engine is not a UCCX service, so likely just some 
bloat on the UCOS/VOS image, however, that doesn't solve the problem of the 
alerts which are being sent.

I've asked for BU escalation at this point, and am waiting to hear back, but in 
the meantime, it would be good to know if others have already been down this 
path, or simply to put this information out there, for when you deploy your 
first UCCX 12.5(1).
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX 12.5(1) Docker Engine Not Running

[Matthew Loraditch]

Didn’t think about that….

It’s running. Curious did you put enough RAM on for the cloud stuff to run? I’m 
wondering if it’s part of that. Mine has the RAM for the cloud services.


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Anthony Holloway 
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 3:45 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
Cc: Cisco VoIP Group 
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX 12.5(1) Docker Engine Not Running

[EXTERNAL]

Thanks for the reply Matt.  You could just use the web interface to see if it's 
running or not.  It's not in CCX Seviceability, just plain Seviceability, under 
Network Services.

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 2:43 PM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
If I could get RTMT to load on my one 12.5 install I’d let you know… some crazy 
java error but haven’t had time to deal with TAC on it. Happens on multiple 
PCs, Fresh RTMT installs and all.



Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Anthony Holloway
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 3:27 PM
To: Cisco VoIP Group 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: [cisco-voip] UCCX 12.5(1) Docker Engine Not Running

[EXTERNAL]

Anyone else running UCCX 12.5(1) and their Docker Engine is Not Running?

It's being caught by CriticalServicesDown and SyslogSeverityMatchFound and 
sending a lot of emails to tech support.

TAC is telling me the Docker Engine is not a UCCX service, so likely just some 
bloat on the UCOS/VOS image, however, that doesn't solve the problem of the 
alerts which are being sent.

I've asked for BU escalation at this point, and am waiting to hear back, but in 
the meantime, it would be good to know if others have already been down this 
path, or simply to put this information out there, for when you deploy your 
first UCCX 12.5(1).
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX 12.5(1) Docker Engine Not Running

[Matthew Loraditch]

If I could get RTMT to load on my one 12.5 install I’d let you know… some crazy 
java error but haven’t had time to deal with TAC on it. Happens on multiple 
PCs, Fresh RTMT installs and all.



Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of Anthony 
Holloway
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 3:27 PM
To: Cisco VoIP Group 
Subject: [cisco-voip] UCCX 12.5(1) Docker Engine Not Running

[EXTERNAL]

Anyone else running UCCX 12.5(1) and their Docker Engine is Not Running?

It's being caught by CriticalServicesDown and SyslogSeverityMatchFound and 
sending a lot of emails to tech support.

TAC is telling me the Docker Engine is not a UCCX service, so likely just some 
bloat on the UCOS/VOS image, however, that doesn't solve the problem of the 
alerts which are being sent.

I've asked for BU escalation at this point, and am waiting to hear back, but in 
the meantime, it would be good to know if others have already been down this 
path, or simply to put this information out there, for when you deploy your 
first UCCX 12.5(1).
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] [EXTERNAL] Re: PSTN Calls Incorrectly Flagged as "Potential SPAM"

[Matthew Loraditch]

I’m wondering how this is all going work once shaken/stir are fully 
implemented. Are we going to have to prove we own numbers to other carriers? 
I’m sure many of us have DIDs outpulsed of alternative circuits at times.


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of Ryan Huff
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 1:52 PM
To: JASON BURWELL 
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] [EXTERNAL] Re: PSTN Calls Incorrectly Flagged as 
"Potential SPAM"

[EXTERNAL]

You need to become a thorn in the side of the AM for your upstream carrier. 
It’s a carrier -2- carrier fight at that point.
Sent from my iPhone


On Apr 3, 2020, at 13:49, JASON BURWELL 
mailto:jason.burw...@foundersfcu.com>> wrote:

Thanks for all the replies thus far. To answer a couple of the questions that 
have come up, we are using valid, working DID numbers that we own for all 
outbound Calling Number Masks. And none of the DIDs forward to other carriers, 
they are all pointed from the PSTN to our various gateways.

One thing that was mentioned is that a SPAM autodialer bot has at some point 
spoofed some of our numbers causing them to be flagged as SPAM which is 
certainly a possibility and nothing we can do about that. I regularly get calls 
even on my cell phone with the whole “hey I missed a call form you” from the 
caller and they get irritated when I tell them, sorry I did not call you.

I know there is nothing we can do from a configuration perspective. I was just 
hoping there was some managed whitelist these carriers used that I was unaware 
of. I know there are various 3rd party apps that do this but its definitely 
something being done at the carrier level as well because I frequently get 
these messages as well on a Verizon phone and I do not have and SPAM apps or 
subscriptions.

As more and more numbers are spoofed for SPAM calls I imagine at some point all 
numbers will be flagged at potential SPAM at this rate.

So unless I missed something, it sounds like there is really nothing we can do 
about it?

Jason



From: Ryan Huff mailto:ryanh...@outlook.com>>
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 12:30 PM
To: JASON BURWELL 
mailto:jason.burw...@foundersfcu.com>>
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cisco-voip] PSTN Calls Incorrectly Flagged as 
"Potential SPAM"

CAUTION: This email originated outside of Founders Federal Credit Union. Do not 
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the 
content is safe.

I’ve seen this happen on my Verizon cell recently. Was very surprised, it was 
the first time I had ever seen it.

CNAME dips and presentation are done by the called party’s carrier, so there 
isn’t anything (functionally) the calling party’s PBX can do to influence that. 
CNAME inserts are done by your upstream carrier, so if something has actually 
been modified in the CNAME database for your ANI, your upstream carrier would 
have done it.

The only real actionable thing I think you can do (besides changing your ANI to 
something else), is what you’ve done. Call your upstream carrier and give them 
call samples where your call was delivered by the called party’s carrier and 
masked with incorrect ANI. Let the carriers fight each other on the carrier 
level.
Sent from my iPhone



On Apr 3, 2020, at 12:13, JASON BURWELL via cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>> wrote:

More and more I have users reporting that their outbound PSTN calls are showing 
as “Potential SPAM” on called party phones. Its causing some real problems 
because these are legitimate calls that the customer in many cases has 
requested but they are ignoring it due to the message and if they don’t have 
voicemail set up or its full they have the perception we are not returning 
calls. I’m assuming the Caller ID name in the national Database is being 
substituted with this message by the wireless carriers. We don’t do any 
telemarketing so there is no reason why our calls should be flagged with SPAM. 
I’ve reached out and received little help from Verizon or AT Wondering what 
other are doing to get numbers “white listed” as I’m sure I’m not the only one 
facing this. Thanks Jason


___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpuck.nether.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcisco-voipdata=02%7C01%7C%7C025b5c5e1ee24bafb68408d7d7e9e664%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637215271894155219sdata=zqF5YXd0fzzHl21673j6mNrAMpXXNFuSYvppGmscXww%3Dreserved=0<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpuck.nether.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcisco-voip=02%7C01%7C%7C75dbe9d323ec40a5edf108d7d7f75e30%7C84

Re: [cisco-voip] RedSky SIP Trunk

[Matthew Loraditch]

Nope it is actually as simple as they said. Basic sip trunk out of CUCM. No 
special profiles, or anything.  Am having problems as one of my CUCMs goes 
through an ISR to get to RedSky vs an ASA. ISR NAT is being funky but dealing 
with that.


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Anthony Holloway 
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 2:27 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] RedSky SIP Trunk

[EXTERNAL]

So...are you still without a functional SIP trunk then Matt?

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 8:08 AM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
Has anyone done this? Surprisingly they don’t provide a bunch of guidance here. 
I’m so used to carriers and other vendors being very very specific about how to 
setup their trunks.

I was planning on doing them directly in CUCM as that seemed simpler, but would 
appreciate any input.



Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

[cisco-voip] RedSky SIP Trunk

[Matthew Loraditch]

Has anyone done this? Surprisingly they don't provide a bunch of guidance here. 
I'm so used to carriers and other vendors being very very specific about how to 
setup their trunks.

I was planning on doing them directly in CUCM as that seemed simpler, but would 
appreciate any input.



Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] [External] Re: certificate renewals - 1 year only - due to Apple changes

[Matthew Loraditch]

I think CSR 14 is supposed to deal with simplicity of certificate operations

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com

From: cisco-voip  on behalf of Hunter 
Fuller 
Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2020 1:55:50 PM
To: Lelio Fulgenzi 
Cc: Norton, Mike ; voyp list, cisco-voip 
(cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) 
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] [External] Re: certificate renewals - 1 year only - 
due to Apple changes


[EXTERNAL]


Is it possible to install a cert via API? If that works, we can do this from an 
admin machine, whether or not the Cisco service (for instance CUCM) supports it.

--
Hunter Fuller
Router Jockey
VBH Annex B-5
+1 256 824 5331

Office of Information Technology
The University of Alabama in Huntsville
Network Engineering


On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 12:46 PM Lelio Fulgenzi 
mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>> wrote:

Unfortunately, I can’t justify a telephone system upgrade for the sake of 
auto-renewal of certificates. ☹



CUCM v11.5 has yet to be announced EOL. (Please Please Please don’t happen 
tomorrow).



This means we’ve got at least 5 more years to plan accordingly.



Will they issue an SU to support let’s encrypt? Let’s hope so!





From: Norton, Mike mailto:mikenor...@pwsd76.ab.ca>>
Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2020 1:38 PM
To: Lelio Fulgenzi mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>>; voyp list, 
cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>) 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: RE: certificate renewals - 1 year only - due to Apple changes



If two years from now, a product that needs public certificates still doesn’t 
support automated renewals, then it’s a terrible product you should have 
migrated away from two years earlier. The writing has been on the wall for a 
long time. But even for developers who’ve had their heads in sand, two years is 
still plenty of time for them to get a clue. ;-)

-mn



From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
Sent: March 4, 2020 10:52 AM
To: voyp list, cisco-voip 
(cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>) 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: [cisco-voip] certificate renewals - 1 year only - due to Apple changes





So, we’ve gotten word that Apple is thinking of “accepting/trusting” only certs 
that are 13 months old or less.



https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/02/20/apple_shorter_cert_lifetime/



This is a bit of a drag on Jabber deployments due to so many certs being needed.



>From what I’ve seen, only Expressway supports auto-renew like let’s encrypt.



>From the article, it seems:



"Certificates issued prior to September 1 will have the same acceptable 
duration as certificates do today, which is 825 days. No action is required for 
these certificates."



I’m guessing it if says Safari, it’s any cert used by an apple device, since 
the safari engine is used throughout, right?



We’re planning on renewing soon, so we should be good to go with 2 years.



But the future?



What are others planning on doing?



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

Re: [cisco-voip] migrating mpp phones to callmanager (and back)

[Matthew Loraditch]

It's not free unless you are on Flex Plan:
https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/products/collateral/collaboration-endpoints/unified-ip-phone-7800-series/firmware-migration-master-guide.pdf



Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of Lelio 
Fulgenzi
Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 10:44 AM
To: voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) 

Subject: [cisco-voip] migrating mpp phones to callmanager (and back)

[EXTERNAL]


Is there anything specially about an mpp phone that wouldn't allow you to load 
CUCM software on it? And then go back to MPP when needed?


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

Re: [cisco-voip] Voicemail Timeout in UCCX

[Matthew Loraditch]

Thanks, and the latter. I’m going to go with 3 second difference just for some 
extra room


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Anthony Holloway 
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 12:23 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Voicemail Timeout in UCCX

[EXTERNAL]

Well, I'm sure it will vary by environment, because it's essentially a 
controlled race condition with many factors, but if you look at the defaults: 
CUCM 12 seconds and UCCX 10 seconds (for Select Resource with Connect set to 
True/Yes), then I would recommend 2 seconds.

Are you talking about Select Resource/Connect, or are you talking about Place 
Call/Call Consult Transfer?

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 11:05 AM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
What is a safe time difference between the CUCM RNA timeout to VM and UCCX 
timeout for a placed call to avoid calls sent directly to an employee from 
hitting VM?

Our RNA is 21 seconds. I don’t want to increase it too much, but want to give 
agents some time to answer the direct call before assuming they aren’t 
available and putting the call into the queue.

Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

[cisco-voip] Voicemail Timeout in UCCX

[Matthew Loraditch]

What is a safe time difference between the CUCM RNA timeout to VM and UCCX 
timeout for a placed call to avoid calls sent directly to an employee from 
hitting VM?

Our RNA is 21 seconds. I don't want to increase it too much, but want to give 
agents some time to answer the direct call before assuming they aren't 
available and putting the call into the queue.

Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] CER Configuration - Guides?

[Matthew Loraditch]

Thank you, that is super useful


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Matt Taber (mtaber) 
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 1:01 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CER Configuration - Guides?

[EXTERNAL]

This guide is a bit more streamlined, with configuration screenshots taken from 
an example deployment:
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/unified-communications/emergency-responder/211453-Cisco-Emergency-Responder-Integration-wi.html

-Matt


On Feb 19, 2020, at 12:53 PM, Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:

Any good guides or blogs that go through this in a more real world way than the 
documentation?

I haven’t found anything super helpful yet.

Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

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

[cisco-voip] CER Configuration - Guides?

[Matthew Loraditch]

Any good guides or blogs that go through this in a more real world way than the 
documentation?

I haven't found anything super helpful yet.

Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] Official Cisco E911 Guidance

[Matthew Loraditch]

The way I’ve read things the only thing you must do if you have an existing 
system is make 911 directly dialable, all the other parts technically depend on 
you doing an upgrade or for new installs.

They appear to deliberately avoid the question of what qualifies as an upgrade….


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Anthony Holloway 
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 3:54 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Official Cisco E911 Guidance

[EXTERNAL]

I found this interesting:

Q: Do I need to upgrade UCM to be compliant?
A: No! Existing UCM deployments are configurable for Kari’s Law.

...

We strongly suggest that Cisco UCM customers evaluate other emergency safety 
add-ons through RedSky, Intrado, and Singlewire

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 2:04 PM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
This was just published:
https://blogs.cisco.com/collaboration/saying-yes-to-workplace-safety-how-ucm-customers-become-compliant-with-karis-law-and-ray-baums-act

https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/products/collateral/unified-communications/unified-communications-manager-callmanager/q-and-a-c67-743415.pdf







Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

[cisco-voip] Official Cisco E911 Guidance

[Matthew Loraditch]

This was just published:
https://blogs.cisco.com/collaboration/saying-yes-to-workplace-safety-how-ucm-customers-become-compliant-with-karis-law-and-ray-baums-act

https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/products/collateral/unified-communications/unified-communications-manager-callmanager/q-and-a-c67-743415.pdf







Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM Cluster Expansion

[Matthew Loraditch]

Yeah, I’m just trying to understand (as I read the ovf file) what the actual 
difference is between the 1000/2500 user OVA. I seem to be missing something 
(or maybe not). CPU is actually 1 less starting but same reservation, same RAM, 
same HDD.


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Ryan Huff 
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2020 5:21 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch ; 
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: CUCM Cluster Expansion

[EXTERNAL]

I wouldn't see a reason not to just up-size the two nodes you have now to the 
2.5k OVA (use 2 vCPU on each node). For the 15 pieces of flair, I'd then add in 
a 3rd 2.5k OVA w/o the CCM service enabled and run TFTP.. etc on it and give 
the pub a break.

-Ryan


From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
on behalf of Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2020 5:10 PM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net> 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: [cisco-voip] CUCM Cluster Expansion


One of my biggest customers is experiencing issues that appear to be related to 
resource utilization. I’ve never had a customer who needed more than a 2 node 
1000 user cluster.



They are getting close to some of the capacity levels listed in the sizing 
guides.



I’m looking for some opinions on what the best way to deal with this. I have 
the hardware capacity for either method.



Add a Third 1000 user Subscriber and turn off call processing and tftp on the 
Pub?



Rebuild both existing servers to 2500 user OVAs?



Add a third and do the rebuild also?



Can I just make the existing server be the 2500 capacity level? I actually 
don’t understand the difference between the 2500 and 1000 user OVAs, the 2500 
appears to actually be lesser capacity by default (1 less cpu). So go to 7500?



I’d appreciate any opinions out there. Going to be doing some reading over the 
next few days to try and figure this out.



Thanks all!

Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: 
www.heliontechnologies.com<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heliontechnologies.com%2F=02%7C01%7C%7Cce2d6c568b074e59d89b08d7b0d19c0e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637172286615655267=av6L%2B8viyiswpC6HDUy2aENY%2BvceWoIpyhx%2Fx3deO1g%3D=0>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion 
Technologies]<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heliontechnologies.com%2F=02%7C01%7C%7Cce2d6c568b074e59d89b08d7b0d19c0e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637172286615665263=KTsNdyJfIruWPtocwe6cT8ks%2FTnLd9THp5GMr09izVI%3D=0>
[Facebook]<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffacebook.com%2Fheliontech=02%7C01%7C%7Cce2d6c568b074e59d89b08d7b0d19c0e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637172286615675256=E2t8noyd7FAVcVK7RbeWYoh0zb%2BrfN8ObogJSIXJ5U8%3D=0>
[Twitter]<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fheliontech=02%7C01%7C%7Cce2d6c568b074e59d89b08d7b0d19c0e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637172286615685252=hQjHhB%2FvQdfN7kBXyGgYIMDxtXuO%2BqUDZ0sWRxFWu%2F4%3D=0>
[LinkedIn]<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fcompany%2Fhelion-technologies=02%7C01%7C%7Cce2d6c568b074e59d89b08d7b0d19c0e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637172286615695252=J%2F2wJkkdgWKkf5OIe35L5NeJRHu4qcEVeWnIe%2B3DUck%3D=0>
[cid:image005.jpg@01D5E292.7B702F70]

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

[cisco-voip] CUCM Cluster Expansion

[Matthew Loraditch]

One of my biggest customers is experiencing issues that appear to be related to 
resource utilization. I've never had a customer who needed more than a 2 node 
1000 user cluster.

They are getting close to some of the capacity levels listed in the sizing 
guides.

I'm looking for some opinions on what the best way to deal with this. I have 
the hardware capacity for either method.

Add a Third 1000 user Subscriber and turn off call processing and tftp on the 
Pub?

Rebuild both existing servers to 2500 user OVAs?

Add a third and do the rebuild also?

Can I just make the existing server be the 2500 capacity level? I actually 
don't understand the difference between the 2500 and 1000 user OVAs, the 2500 
appears to actually be lesser capacity by default (1 less cpu). So go to 7500?

I'd appreciate any opinions out there. Going to be doing some reading over the 
next few days to try and figure this out.

Thanks all!

Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] Field Notice from Cisco making Secure LDAP mandatory

[Matthew Loraditch]

Interesting. Our root cert is and has been loaded, but I’m still using just the 
IPs so normally that would make the handshake fail.

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com

From: Lelio Fulgenzi 
Sent: Sunday, February 9, 2020 5:15:40 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
Cc: James Buchanan ; voyp list, cisco-voip 
(cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) 
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Field Notice from Cisco making Secure LDAP mandatory


[EXTERNAL]


I couldn’t get secure ldap to work without loading the certificates from the AD 
servers. I also had more luck using the global catalog ports.

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 9, 2020, at 5:05 PM, Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:

I was wondering if they were going to post anything as it’s very unclear if 
ldap over tls was the fix.

Apparently (and amen) it is. Did it on our office system last week to see if it 
would work without any certificate needs. It just worked and during a save it 
will instantly tell you if it worked or not.

Outside of the most regimented environments you should be able to just make the 
change. If it fails talk to your AD team as they would likely have something 
blocked or disabled.

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>|  
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>


From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
on behalf of James Buchanan 
mailto:james.buchan...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Sunday, February 9, 2020 4:57:40 PM
To: voyp list, cisco-voip 
(cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>) 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: [cisco-voip] Field Notice from Cisco making Secure LDAP mandatory


[EXTERNAL]


Hello folks,

I know you all needed some more work. I sure did! So here you are!

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/trouble/12_5_1/fieldNotice/cucm_b_fn-secure-ldap-mandatory-ad.html

I'm interested in any early thoughts on other integrations--vCenter, ISE, VPN, 
TACACS, etc. I assume it applies across the board.

Thanks,

James

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

Re: [cisco-voip] Field Notice from Cisco making Secure LDAP mandatory

[Matthew Loraditch]

I was wondering if they were going to post anything as it’s very unclear if 
ldap over tls was the fix.

Apparently (and amen) it is. Did it on our office system last week to see if it 
would work without any certificate needs. It just worked and during a save it 
will instantly tell you if it worked or not.

Outside of the most regimented environments you should be able to just make the 
change. If it fails talk to your AD team as they would likely have something 
blocked or disabled.

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com

From: cisco-voip  on behalf of James 
Buchanan 
Sent: Sunday, February 9, 2020 4:57:40 PM
To: voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) 

Subject: [cisco-voip] Field Notice from Cisco making Secure LDAP mandatory


[EXTERNAL]


Hello folks,

I know you all needed some more work. I sure did! So here you are!

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/trouble/12_5_1/fieldNotice/cucm_b_fn-secure-ldap-mandatory-ad.html

I'm interested in any early thoughts on other integrations--vCenter, ISE, VPN, 
TACACS, etc. I assume it applies across the board.

Thanks,

James

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

Re: [cisco-voip] OAuth for Unity Connection/Office 365

[Matthew Loraditch]

I did see that this morning and it fueled my confusion as it’s not needed (or 
useful) when using oauth and the EWS APIs.

They added OAuth because Microsoft is disabling the basic authentication that 
the Autodiscover and the old method used to use.

Really just hoping to get some insight from someone and hope to hear it’s half 
baked and will be finished later and/or I found an issue and it’ll get fixed. 
Will work with TAC eventually if I don’t get any feedback



Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Dave Goodwin 
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 10:32 AM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] OAuth for Unity Connection/Office 365

[EXTERNAL]

Matthew, yes it is pretty new, and I have no setup with which to experiment or 
test, but have you read this section of the CUC 12.x doc? It seems to indicate 
CUC will still use Auto Discovery and in Step 6 it shows how to enable that in 
O365.
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/connection/12x/unified_messaging/b_12xcucumgx/b_12xcucumgx_chapter_01.html#ID-2370-05f5

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 10:04 AM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
This just came out yesterday so this is more directed for anyone lurking at 
Cisco, but how is this supposed to work?

Our UM has been disabled for months because of MS security requirements for 
resellers that broke the old way so I quickly installed this in my test lab to 
see if it will fix my issue.

According to all the MS documentation there should be no need to use the old 
Autodiscover, etc that Unity was using. You just connect to the default 
outlook.office365.com<http://outlook.office365.com> EWS url and use your oauth 
info and boom.

However, the fields for the old account are still there and mandatory and all 
the test options are going through and failing Autodiscover…

If I look at the Mailbox Sync Logs I don’t see any evidence it’s trying to use 
Oauth/EWS.

Going down the rabbit hole so everyone else doesn’t have to!












Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
[cid:image006.jpg@01D5DB46.F99D31C0]
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

[cisco-voip] OAuth for Unity Connection/Office 365

[Matthew Loraditch]

This just came out yesterday so this is more directed for anyone lurking at 
Cisco, but how is this supposed to work?

Our UM has been disabled for months because of MS security requirements for 
resellers that broke the old way so I quickly installed this in my test lab to 
see if it will fix my issue.

According to all the MS documentation there should be no need to use the old 
Autodiscover, etc that Unity was using. You just connect to the default 
outlook.office365.com EWS url and use your oauth info and boom.

However, the fields for the old account are still there and mandatory and all 
the test options are going through and failing Autodiscover...

If I look at the Mailbox Sync Logs I don't see any evidence it's trying to use 
Oauth/EWS.

Going down the rabbit hole so everyone else doesn't have to!












Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] Cisco Headset Inventory SSL Issue

[Matthew Loraditch]

After an hour down the rabbit hole: 
https://bst.cloudapps.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCvk45630/?rfs=iqvred


Hopefully this helps someone else out!

Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of Matthew 
Loraditch
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 11:11 AM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-voip] Cisco Headset Inventory SSL Issue

[EXTERNAL]

So we have a couple of the Cisco headsets and noticed they have never reported 
to the inventory function.

Figured out that they connect over ssl and are validating my tomcat cert. Cert 
is signed by my internal CA. Phones don’t trust that CA. What trust does it 
need to go in and how do I ensure the phones get it ? Regen tvs?

Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
[cid:image005.jpg@01D5D5D5.7990]

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

[cisco-voip] Cisco Headset Inventory SSL Issue

[Matthew Loraditch]

So we have a couple of the Cisco headsets and noticed they have never reported 
to the inventory function.

Figured out that they connect over ssl and are validating my tomcat cert. Cert 
is signed by my internal CA. Phones don't trust that CA. What trust does it 
need to go in and how do I ensure the phones get it ? Regen tvs?

Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

[cisco-voip] HTTP Response for HTTP Triggered Script

[Matthew Loraditch]

Got the following comment from the developer who is writing an app that will 
queue a call via http trigger:
It seems like the MobileApp integration is accepting my request, spits back 
some HTML, but the HTTP request remains open until the queued call is answered.

Ideally, that HTTP request would be closed with a successful HTTP status code 
(e.g. HTTP 200) when the call was queued, so that I can report back to the user 
that they can wait for a callback.

I understand his problem, but I see no way  of fixing it. The send http 
response command doesn't seem to have any settings but the doc sent back. Is 
this normal behavior or can I do something with the doc being sent back to make 
it work?


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] Webex + OBTP + Multiple Rooms

[Matthew Loraditch]

Interesting. Its like they added extra logic to it instead of just if webex 
info exists add button

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com

From: Lelio Fulgenzi 
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 4:37:02 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch ; Anthony Holloway 
; Cisco VoIP Group 
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] Webex + OBTP + Multiple Rooms


[EXTERNAL]


You’d think… but like I explained in my response, this does not work if both 
Orgs are CH orgs with O365 calendar integration enabled.



It almost goes against what you’d think. Webex to Webex didn’t work. But Gmail 
Calendar to Webex did. 



From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of Matthew 
Loraditch
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 4:30 PM
To: Anthony Holloway ; Cisco VoIP Group 

Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Webex + OBTP + Multiple Rooms



Presuming a Microsoft environment the recipients can just forward the invite to 
the relevant room mailboxes no matter the org. As long as the webex section is 
unaltered the meetings should be picked up by the webex obtp process



Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>



Matthew Loraditch​

Sr. Network Engineer

p: 443.541.1518

w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>

 |

e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>

[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>

[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>

[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>

[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>

[cid:image005.jpg@01D5D20B.56026B50]



From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
on behalf of Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 4:20:19 PM
To: Cisco VoIP Group 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: [cisco-voip] Webex + OBTP + Multiple Rooms



[EXTERNAL]



Excuse my ignorance here, but how do you see people using Webex OBTP when the 
host is booking a room+device, and there is a remote office or two, and they 
would like the OBTP to join in their rooms too?



I could see two scenarios: 1) the host would need to book all rooms on one 
invite, or 2) the participants book their own rooms.



And come to think of it, what if the host is in Org A, while the participants 
are in Org B, which eliminates the first scenario, but promotes the second.



If in scenario 2, are the participants getting the OBTP to work correctly by 
just manual copy/paste the invite body into their own separate invite?
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] Webex + OBTP + Multiple Rooms

[Matthew Loraditch]

Presuming a Microsoft environment the recipients can just forward the invite to 
the relevant room mailboxes no matter the org. As long as the webex section is 
unaltered the meetings should be picked up by the webex obtp process

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com

From: cisco-voip  on behalf of Anthony 
Holloway 
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 4:20:19 PM
To: Cisco VoIP Group 
Subject: [cisco-voip] Webex + OBTP + Multiple Rooms


[EXTERNAL]


Excuse my ignorance here, but how do you see people using Webex OBTP when the 
host is booking a room+device, and there is a remote office or two, and they 
would like the OBTP to join in their rooms too?

I could see two scenarios: 1) the host would need to book all rooms on one 
invite, or 2) the participants book their own rooms.

And come to think of it, what if the host is in Org A, while the participants 
are in Org B, which eliminates the first scenario, but promotes the second.

If in scenario 2, are the participants getting the OBTP to work correctly by 
just manual copy/paste the invite body into their own separate invite?
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

[cisco-voip] UCCX Question...

[Matthew Loraditch]

Is it possible to have an HTTP Trigger go into a CSQ and on connected transfer 
the agent to an outside line?
In my testing so far this seems to be impossible...

My option appears to be to have the HTTP trigger application call into the 
queue via another application and pass variables I need sent to the agent for 
screen popping via session mapping. If anyone knows of a good tutorial that 
shows passing variables from one application to another simply, let me know. 
I've read a few and they are very confusing.



Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] TMSXE 5.5 and TMS 15.9

[Matthew Loraditch]

My understanding is the versions are always lockstep with TMS and the 
extensions. Updating any requires to update them all to the corresponding 
releases.


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of Jonathan 
Charles
Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 4:37 PM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-voip] TMSXE 5.5 and TMS 15.9

Are they compatible?

We are upgrading TMS from 15.5 to 15.9 tonight, but may not be able to do TMSXE 
at the same time.

I can't find clear compatibility information... the docs say 5.5 goes with 15.5 
and 5.9 with 15.9... but no cross compatibility.




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

Re: [cisco-voip] Webex Directory Connector Welcome Emails

[Matthew Loraditch]

You must enable sso. You can sync licenses based on ad groups now if that helps 
your license issue.


Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com

From: cisco-voip  on behalf of Jonathan 
Charles 
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2019 1:34:18 PM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net 
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Webex Directory Connector Welcome Emails

Also, we have not yet enabled SSO, so unchecking the welcome email is not an 
option


Jonathan

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 12:33 PM Jonathan Charles 
mailto:jonv...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Have  a customer with 20K+ users, want to enable directory synchronization, but 
am concerned it is going to send 20K emails to 15K users who will not be using 
Webex.

How do I avoid this?

Also, if all of them are licensed via template, how do we ensure users who 
never log in will not use a license?


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

Re: [cisco-voip] OT: DNS for data centers

[Matthew Loraditch]

You can definitely do this. If nothing else you can use host files, but you can 
for sure do it with servers as well.

I’m not sure what type of servers you use for DNS, but if visually seeing a 
Windows server with it would help, DM me next week and I can show you one.


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of Lelio 
Fulgenzi
Sent: Friday, November 8, 2019 4:41 PM
To: voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) 

Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] OT: DNS for data centers

So, here’s the catch

In the DC dns:

dchost1.catering.uoguelph.ca points to the dc IP address


outside of DC dns

dchost1.catering.uoguelph.ca points to the public ip address
host2.catering.uoguelph.ca points to the public ip address (there is no dc 
equivalent of this host)


hosts in the DC need to resolve host2.catering.uoguelph.ca as well.

I’m not sure this works.



---
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<mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>

www.uoguelph.ca/ccs<http://www.uoguelph.ca/ccs> | @UofGCCS on Instagram, 
Twitter and Facebook

[University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]

From: Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>
Sent: Friday, November 8, 2019 4:28 PM
To: Lelio Fulgenzi mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>>; voyp list, 
cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>) 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: RE: OT: DNS for data centers

So to answer your question, I think it’s no, but from a practical standpoint of 
addressing your problem I would:

I would just create zones just for those specific records on your DC DNS 
server(s)

So a zone for oddballserver1.uoguelph.edu pointing to 1.1.1.1 and so on and 
then forward all other traffic to your regular servers.

We do this in the other direction when we the internal domain doesn’t equal the 
public domain, but we have certain hosts like the exchange server or adfs 
server where we need the url to work internally but don’t want to have to deal 
with all the normal www and other entries having to be maintained internally.






Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
Sent: Friday, November 8, 2019 4:22 PM
To: voyp list, cisco-voip 
(cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>) 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: [cisco-voip] OT: DNS for data centers


Here a question for those with DNS experience….

We have a requirement for our DC hosts to access some services/hosts using 
different IP addresses as the rest of campus. Sounds familiar right? We’re 
investigating the best way to do this.

Are we looking at enabling split view DNS on our campus DNS servers? Or 
introducing a new set of data center DNS servers?

Here’s the catch…. The DC servers need to access all the rest of the hosts at 
the same address of the rest of campus.

What we don’t want to do is replicate our DNS zones in their entirety and then 
have to update each of them with each new DNS record request that comes in.

The question a few of us had is this.

Can a DNS server which is authoritative for a zone forward requests for that 
zone if they don’t resolve internally?

The picture would be this.

Our campus DNS servers would remain. Two new DC DNS servers would be created 
with a handful (ok, more than a handful) of entries. The servers in the DC 
would point to the DC DNS server to get their information and the DC DNS server 
would forward the rest that it can not resolve to our campus DNS servers.

The campus DNS servers would _never_ refer requests to the DC servers.

Thoughts? (about this request)

---
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<mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>

www.uoguelph.ca/ccs<http://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

Re: [cisco-voip] OT: DNS for data centers

[Matthew Loraditch]

So to answer your question, I think it's no, but from a practical standpoint of 
addressing your problem I would:

I would just create zones just for those specific records on your DC DNS 
server(s)

So a zone for oddballserver1.uoguelph.edu pointing to 1.1.1.1 and so on and 
then forward all other traffic to your regular servers.

We do this in the other direction when we the internal domain doesn't equal the 
public domain, but we have certain hosts like the exchange server or adfs 
server where we need the url to work internally but don't want to have to deal 
with all the normal www and other entries having to be maintained internally.






Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of Lelio 
Fulgenzi
Sent: Friday, November 8, 2019 4:22 PM
To: voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) 

Subject: [cisco-voip] OT: DNS for data centers


Here a question for those with DNS experience

We have a requirement for our DC hosts to access some services/hosts using 
different IP addresses as the rest of campus. Sounds familiar right? We're 
investigating the best way to do this.

Are we looking at enabling split view DNS on our campus DNS servers? Or 
introducing a new set of data center DNS servers?

Here's the catch The DC servers need to access all the rest of the hosts at 
the same address of the rest of campus.

What we don't want to do is replicate our DNS zones in their entirety and then 
have to update each of them with each new DNS record request that comes in.

The question a few of us had is this.

Can a DNS server which is authoritative for a zone forward requests for that 
zone if they don't resolve internally?

The picture would be this.

Our campus DNS servers would remain. Two new DC DNS servers would be created 
with a handful (ok, more than a handful) of entries. The servers in the DC 
would point to the DC DNS server to get their information and the DC DNS server 
would forward the rest that it can not resolve to our campus DNS servers.

The campus DNS servers would _never_ refer requests to the DC servers.

Thoughts? (about this request)

---
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<mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>

www.uoguelph.ca/ccs<http://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

Re: [cisco-voip] Webex: Welcome back Productivity Tools

[Matthew Loraditch]

There are a few threads in the ambassador groups about it that have some 
explanation after the closest equivalent to a rebellion occurred today.

There’s a few reasons, one a mac issue where the pts always require admin privs 
and they want the meetings app to install without that for ease of use

Also apparently you can’t have the pts and the office 365 addin at the same 
time so they need to split.

At 39.10 anyone who has old version installed will get updated to the new split 
versions and keep working. New installs after will require both.

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com

From: cisco-voip  on behalf of Anthony 
Holloway 
Sent: Wednesday, November 6, 2019 7:22:19 PM
To: Lelio Fulgenzi 
Cc: voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) 

Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Webex: Welcome back Productivity Tools

On the surface this seems like a huge pain the ass.  I'll have to re-read that 
and digest it a bit more, but I just went through an on prem CWMS conversion to 
Webex cloud and losing productivity tools in favor of the Desktop App was a 
huge part of the project.  Now this...  maybe it's better and I just don't see 
it.  I need time to think on it.

On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 5:53 PM Lelio Fulgenzi 
mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>> wrote:

For those dealing with Webex, you'll love this:


https://help.webex.com/en-us/nw2c30k/What-s-New-in-Webex-Meetings-Suite-WBS39-10

Cisco Webex Site Page Enhancements
Separation of Productivity Tools and the Desktop App for Better Management
Cisco Webex Productivity Tools supports integrations with Microsoft Outlook, 
IBM Lotus Notes, and other applications. The Webex Meetings desktop app allows 
users to start and join the meetings quickly and easily. With the availability 
of the Webex Meetings desktop app pre-meeting experience in the WBS39.1 update, 
we packaged Productivity Tools and the desktop app together so users could get 
integrations and the pre-meeting experience in a single install. This lets 
users schedule the meeting with the desktop app.


---
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<mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca><mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca<mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>>

www.uoguelph.ca/ccs<http://www.uoguelph.ca/ccs><http://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<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCx and Jabber - compatible or not?

[Matthew Loraditch]

Correct. CSF/TAB/TCT is to use Jabber as a softphone not deskphone control.


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Lelio Fulgenzi 
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 3:36 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch ; Johnson, Tim 
; voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) 

Subject: RE: UCCx and Jabber - compatible or not?

Ok, now you’re really freaking me out.

You don’t need a CSF device to log in with Jabber?


---
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<mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>

www.uoguelph.ca/ccs<http://www.uoguelph.ca/ccs> | @UofGCCS on Instagram, 
Twitter and Facebook

[University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]

From: Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 3:32 PM
To: Johnson, Tim mailto:johns...@cmich.edu>>; Lelio 
Fulgenzi mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>>; voyp list, cisco-voip 
(cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>) 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: RE: UCCx and Jabber - compatible or not?

Yeah just don’t create one if you don’t like having them blank. You don’t need 
a CSF for deskphone control.


Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
From: Johnson, Tim mailto:johns...@cmich.edu>>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 3:30 PM
To: Lelio Fulgenzi mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>>; Matthew 
Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>; 
voyp list, cisco-voip 
(cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>) 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: RE: UCCx and Jabber - compatible or not?

Yeah, just don’t have a CSF device assigned to that user. Or, if you do have a 
CSF device for that user, make sure their IPCC extension is not assigned to it.


From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 3:30 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>; 
voyp list, cisco-voip 
(cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>) 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCx and Jabber - compatible or not?

Interesting. Devices without DNs just freak me out!

---
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<mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>

www.uoguelph.ca/ccs<https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uoguelph.ca%2Fccs=02%7C01%7Cjohns10t%40cmich.edu%7Cd3e8f45235534840a33b08d754018c39%7Cc871bc6e7cc64a57a4eb22309fc34963%7C1%7C0%7C637070237946738905=%2Bf6iMhaBq6Y4gQDKqIqJ40n%2FygaCScpxwNMdHgWN52E%3D=0>
 | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook

[University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]

From: Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 3:28 PM
To: Lelio Fulgenzi mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>>; voyp list, 
cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>) 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: RE: UCCx and Jabber - compatible or not?

Correct. If you have agents who want to  use Jabber and have a hardphone DO NOT 
put their agent DN on any other device. If you search the DN in CUCM you need 
to see that DN associated to only a single device




Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: 
www.heliontechnologies.com<https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heliontechnologies.com%2F=02%7C01%7Cjohns10t%40cmich.edu%7Cd3e8f45235534840a33b08d754018c39%7Cc871bc6e7cc64a57a4eb22309fc34963%7C1%7C0%7C637070237946738905=hBMWnYkDJen08sR5XCDSOHoUho9EjgnQPEeSBBt5LeE%3D=0>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion 
Technologies]<https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heliontechnologies.com%2F=02%7C01%7Cjohns10t%40cmich.edu%7Cd3e8f45235534840a33b08d754018c39%7Cc871bc6e7cc64a57a4eb22309fc34963%7C1%7C0%7C637070237946748896=yFsxx7OVW18TRDrq7qcNMj5BclqfMUvhn%2B4hOtP5wLY%3D=0>
[Facebook]<https://nam05.safelinks.protec

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCx and Jabber - compatible or not?

[Matthew Loraditch]

Yeah just don’t create one if you don’t like having them blank. You don’t need 
a CSF for deskphone control.


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Johnson, Tim 
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 3:30 PM
To: Lelio Fulgenzi ; Matthew Loraditch 
; voyp list, cisco-voip 
(cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) 
Subject: RE: UCCx and Jabber - compatible or not?

Yeah, just don’t have a CSF device assigned to that user. Or, if you do have a 
CSF device for that user, make sure their IPCC extension is not assigned to it.


From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 3:30 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>; 
voyp list, cisco-voip 
(cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>) 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCCx and Jabber - compatible or not?

Interesting. Devices without DNs just freak me out!

---
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<mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>

www.uoguelph.ca/ccs<https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uoguelph.ca%2Fccs=02%7C01%7Cjohns10t%40cmich.edu%7Cd3e8f45235534840a33b08d754018c39%7Cc871bc6e7cc64a57a4eb22309fc34963%7C1%7C0%7C637070237946738905=%2Bf6iMhaBq6Y4gQDKqIqJ40n%2FygaCScpxwNMdHgWN52E%3D=0>
 | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook

[University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]

From: Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 3:28 PM
To: Lelio Fulgenzi mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>>; voyp list, 
cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>) 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: RE: UCCx and Jabber - compatible or not?

Correct. If you have agents who want to  use Jabber and have a hardphone DO NOT 
put their agent DN on any other device. If you search the DN in CUCM you need 
to see that DN associated to only a single device




Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: 
www.heliontechnologies.com<https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heliontechnologies.com%2F=02%7C01%7Cjohns10t%40cmich.edu%7Cd3e8f45235534840a33b08d754018c39%7Cc871bc6e7cc64a57a4eb22309fc34963%7C1%7C0%7C637070237946738905=hBMWnYkDJen08sR5XCDSOHoUho9EjgnQPEeSBBt5LeE%3D=0>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion 
Technologies]<https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heliontechnologies.com%2F=02%7C01%7Cjohns10t%40cmich.edu%7Cd3e8f45235534840a33b08d754018c39%7Cc871bc6e7cc64a57a4eb22309fc34963%7C1%7C0%7C637070237946748896=yFsxx7OVW18TRDrq7qcNMj5BclqfMUvhn%2B4hOtP5wLY%3D=0>
[Facebook]<https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffacebook.com%2Fheliontech=02%7C01%7Cjohns10t%40cmich.edu%7Cd3e8f45235534840a33b08d754018c39%7Cc871bc6e7cc64a57a4eb22309fc34963%7C1%7C0%7C637070237946748896=b8zoM%2BZnmvno2cGCNSuQmYD8TcozrgcZZfcJFkW4ylc%3D=0>
[Twitter]<https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fheliontech=02%7C01%7Cjohns10t%40cmich.edu%7Cd3e8f45235534840a33b08d754018c39%7Cc871bc6e7cc64a57a4eb22309fc34963%7C1%7C0%7C637070237946758894=YPSUbSlvI6b0Bp9y06Wt%2FysAdzmN%2FVwaY05hJrfoXaE%3D=0>
[LinkedIn]<https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fcompany%2Fhelion-technologies=02%7C01%7Cjohns10t%40cmich.edu%7Cd3e8f45235534840a33b08d754018c39%7Cc871bc6e7cc64a57a4eb22309fc34963%7C1%7C0%7C637070237946758894=u6d0rW%2FOzOrHDV5Yhdp3ULuNTLxyp%2FxuvHp5ghNiBUk%3D=0>
From: Lelio Fulgenzi mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 3:26 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>; 
voyp list, cisco-voip 
(cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>) 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: RE: UCCx and Jabber - compatible or not?

Yes jabber in deskphone control mode is ok. Jabber is not operating as a 
softphone in that mode and breaks no UCCX “rules”

In this case, do I have to make sure not to program a DN on Jabber?

---
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<mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>

www.uoguelph.ca/ccs<https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uoguelph.ca%2Fccs=02%7C01%7Cjohns10t%40cmich.edu%7Cd3e8f45235534840a33b08d754018c39%7Cc871bc6e7cc64a57a4eb22309fc34963%7C1

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCx and Jabber - compatible or not?

[Matthew Loraditch]

Correct. If you have agents who want to  use Jabber and have a hardphone DO NOT 
put their agent DN on any other device. If you search the DN in CUCM you need 
to see that DN associated to only a single device




Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Lelio Fulgenzi 
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 3:26 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch ; voyp list, 
cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) 
Subject: RE: UCCx and Jabber - compatible or not?

Yes jabber in deskphone control mode is ok. Jabber is not operating as a 
softphone in that mode and breaks no UCCX “rules”

In this case, do I have to make sure not to program a DN on Jabber?

---
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<mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>

www.uoguelph.ca/ccs<http://www.uoguelph.ca/ccs> | @UofGCCS on Instagram, 
Twitter and Facebook

[University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]

From: Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 3:24 PM
To: Lelio Fulgenzi mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>>; voyp list, 
cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>) 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: RE: UCCx and Jabber - compatible or not?

LOL

Yes Historically you were good with the hardphone and CIPC b/c you can use ext. 
mobility on both to get you extension and from a UCCX perspective said 
extension was only on one device in CUCM.

Yes jabber in deskphone control mode is ok. Jabber is not operating as a 
softphone in that mode and breaks no UCCX “rules”




Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
From: Lelio Fulgenzi mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 3:17 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>; 
voyp list, cisco-voip 
(cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>) 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: RE: UCCx and Jabber - compatible or not?

Oh yeah – I remember that session. It was great. But not as good as the session 
where I raised my hand and asked when they were gonna get rid of that final 
cable from the room kit to the touch 10. 

But, I digress.

So, historically, are you saying then, that one could have a hardphone with an 
agent extension and use CIPC with extension mobility and activate that same 
agent extension on CIPC and things would work and it was supported?

>From your last statement, “Jabber CTI control is kosher and has no bearing on 
>this issue.” , are you implying I could install Jabber and modify the call 
>settings to use the hard phone and it _would_ work?

---
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<mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>

www.uoguelph.ca/ccs<http://www.uoguelph.ca/ccs> | @UofGCCS on Instagram, 
Twitter and Facebook

[University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]

From: Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 3:07 PM
To: Lelio Fulgenzi mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>>; voyp list, 
cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>) 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: RE: UCCx and Jabber - compatible or not?

The problem is workers who have a deskphone and also need to use a softphone 
occasionally or vice-versa.

An agent extension can only be programmed on one device in all of CUCM.

Previously the above situation could be handled by CIPC as extension mobility 
is supported.

Jabber does not and will not support extension mobility as a softphone.

UCCX says that supporting an agent extension on multiple devices is extremely 
difficult to fix

I can’t remember if you were in those sessions at Cisco Live with me or not but 
it was a fun little it’s not my problem scenario from the two BUs in some of 
the sessions asking how they were going to fix this.

Jabber CTI control is kosher and has no bearing on this issue.


Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi.

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCx and Jabber - compatible or not?

[Matthew Loraditch]

LOL

Yes Historically you were good with the hardphone and CIPC b/c you can use ext. 
mobility on both to get you extension and from a UCCX perspective said 
extension was only on one device in CUCM.

Yes jabber in deskphone control mode is ok. Jabber is not operating as a 
softphone in that mode and breaks no UCCX “rules”




Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Lelio Fulgenzi 
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 3:17 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch ; voyp list, 
cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) 
Subject: RE: UCCx and Jabber - compatible or not?

Oh yeah – I remember that session. It was great. But not as good as the session 
where I raised my hand and asked when they were gonna get rid of that final 
cable from the room kit to the touch 10. 

But, I digress.

So, historically, are you saying then, that one could have a hardphone with an 
agent extension and use CIPC with extension mobility and activate that same 
agent extension on CIPC and things would work and it was supported?

>From your last statement, “Jabber CTI control is kosher and has no bearing on 
>this issue.” , are you implying I could install Jabber and modify the call 
>settings to use the hard phone and it _would_ work?

---
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<mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>

www.uoguelph.ca/ccs<http://www.uoguelph.ca/ccs> | @UofGCCS on Instagram, 
Twitter and Facebook

[University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]

From: Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 3:07 PM
To: Lelio Fulgenzi mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>>; voyp list, 
cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>) 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: RE: UCCx and Jabber - compatible or not?

The problem is workers who have a deskphone and also need to use a softphone 
occasionally or vice-versa.

An agent extension can only be programmed on one device in all of CUCM.

Previously the above situation could be handled by CIPC as extension mobility 
is supported.

Jabber does not and will not support extension mobility as a softphone.

UCCX says that supporting an agent extension on multiple devices is extremely 
difficult to fix

I can’t remember if you were in those sessions at Cisco Live with me or not but 
it was a fun little it’s not my problem scenario from the two BUs in some of 
the sessions asking how they were going to fix this.

Jabber CTI control is kosher and has no bearing on this issue.


Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 2:55 PM
To: voyp list, cisco-voip 
(cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>) 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: [cisco-voip] UCCx and Jabber - compatible or not?


I’ve heard all the rumblings with UCCx and Jabber. But I’m hoping someone can 
explain to me what exactly the problem is. From what I understand, there is not 
an actual incompatibility with UCCx and Jabber, just with some deployment 
methods and some restrictions UCCx places on things.

So, in simplest terms, if you have a desktop agent, with Jabber (4Win) running 
and only one (agent) extension and no other device has that extension, things 
work.

I believe it’s when you try to do anything else other than this simple 
deployment that things go awry. Say, have both Jabber and a hard phone and log 
into your queue using a phone agent on the hard phone but want to use Jabber to 
answer. Or you want Jabber to control your hard phone. Etc.

Can I get some ideas as to whether this is true and where people have seen 
trouble? And what is actually supported?

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<mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>

www.uoguelph.ca/ccs<http://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

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCx and Jabber - compatible or not?

[Matthew Loraditch]

The problem is workers who have a deskphone and also need to use a softphone 
occasionally or vice-versa.

An agent extension can only be programmed on one device in all of CUCM.

Previously the above situation could be handled by CIPC as extension mobility 
is supported.

Jabber does not and will not support extension mobility as a softphone.

UCCX says that supporting an agent extension on multiple devices is extremely 
difficult to fix

I can't remember if you were in those sessions at Cisco Live with me or not but 
it was a fun little it's not my problem scenario from the two BUs in some of 
the sessions asking how they were going to fix this.

Jabber CTI control is kosher and has no bearing on this issue.


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of Lelio 
Fulgenzi
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 2:55 PM
To: voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) 

Subject: [cisco-voip] UCCx and Jabber - compatible or not?


I've heard all the rumblings with UCCx and Jabber. But I'm hoping someone can 
explain to me what exactly the problem is. From what I understand, there is not 
an actual incompatibility with UCCx and Jabber, just with some deployment 
methods and some restrictions UCCx places on things.

So, in simplest terms, if you have a desktop agent, with Jabber (4Win) running 
and only one (agent) extension and no other device has that extension, things 
work.

I believe it's when you try to do anything else other than this simple 
deployment that things go awry. Say, have both Jabber and a hard phone and log 
into your queue using a phone agent on the hard phone but want to use Jabber to 
answer. Or you want Jabber to control your hard phone. Etc.

Can I get some ideas as to whether this is true and where people have seen 
trouble? And what is actually supported?

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<mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>

www.uoguelph.ca/ccs<http://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

Re: [cisco-voip] valid sku for cuwl license

[Matthew Loraditch]

I believe that’s correct ordering sku but not the actual sku that issues the 
license. However if you want 1250 demo licenses Id involve your partner or your 
am and pss if you’re a partner. That’s quite a lot and will probably need some 
justification

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: cisco-voip  on behalf of naresh 
rathore 
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 6:23:13 PM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net 
Subject: [cisco-voip] valid sku for cuwl license

hi,


I contacted licensing team to get demo license for cuwl license (1250 Qty) but 
she mentioned that sku is not correct. i sent her following



CUWL-11X-K9

 NEW-UWL-11X-STD (QTY 1250)

is this sku not correct?


Regards


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

[cisco-voip] CME 11 GUI Files

[Matthew Loraditch]

If anyone has access to CME-11.0.0.0-GUI.tar and can unicast it to me, I would 
be much obliged.

Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] Is Your CCIE Status on Your Cisco.com Profile?

[Matthew Loraditch]

Outside of the Collab VT, I’d say if you are involved in post sales you get 
better and more timely info in the CCP about future stuff and planning than you 
do as a partner.

The stuff Srini knows and I do to some extent is about ordering and BOMs, etc 
etc. and not really useful to post sales scenarios usually.


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of Anthony 
Holloway
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 12:59 PM
To: UC Penguin 
Cc: Cisco VoIP Group 
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Is Your CCIE Status on Your Cisco.com Profile?

I was just kidding around anyway.

For what it's worth, I've been at a Partner for the majority of my career (~10 
out of ~13 years), and I can honestly say that, from a post-sales engineering 
role I serve, there's very little of benefit to me on the partner side.  I 
derive almost all of my value from public documentation, the non-partner 
support forums, this mailing list, and good old fashion "let's try it and see 
what it does."

I find the partner support forum area to be quite dead, and when questions are 
asked, it's public information that could have benefited a google searcher 
looking for that answer.

Perhaps some partners will chime in here and share with me some nugget of 
information, and I'll realize, once again, I've been missing out on something 
for all these years.  SMH

I can see how though, for a pre-sales engineer, that would be quite different.  
I see Srini<https://community.cisco.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/322131> 
over in the partner forums just crushing it, basically doing Cisco's job for 
them, helping all kinds of partners out.  Competitors to his own company no 
less.

On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 11:49 AM UC Penguin 
mailto:gen...@ucpenguin.com>> wrote:
It wasn’t intended to be mean.

Just an observation.

Would be nice if CCIEs (that aren’t associated with a partner), are given more 
access similar to what is available to partners.

I can’t count the number of times going through support forums something links 
to a partner only link.

I’m probably in the minority, but just a different view point.

On Sep 24, 2019, at 10:08, Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Low blow Mt Penguin, low blow.  I'm not saying you get developers on the case 
with you.  I think it's more of a backbone TAC (if available) versus the 
outsourced TAC.  I admittedly haven't opened a TAC case since fixing my status, 
so the benefit has yet to be seen by me.  I did notice I can select Sev 2 
online, however, Sev 1 was still disabled as an option when I took a cursory 
look.

On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 9:32 AM UC Penguin 
mailto:gen...@ucpenguin.com>> wrote:
Mine was associated, though I haven’t seen any noticeable TAC improvements.

On Sep 24, 2019, at 09:27, Lelio Fulgenzi 
mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>> wrote:
I’ve forwarded this note to a couple of my colleagues. I’m pretty sure they had 
a similar experience in thinking CCIE treatment was automatic. I’ll have to 
follow up with them.



---
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<mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>

www.uoguelph.ca/ccs<http://www.uoguelph.ca/ccs> | @UofGCCS on Instagram, 
Twitter and Facebook



From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Anthony Holloway
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 10:22 AM
To: Peter Slow mailto:peter.s...@gmail.com>>
Cc: Cisco VoIP Group 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Is Your CCIE Status on Your 
Cisco.com<http://Cisco.com> Profile?

Thank you so much for the congratulations and appreciation!  So far no one has 
mentioned that it helped them get associated, or if they already were, so I'm 
not too sure if this was a valuable guide or not.  I'm afraid I might be the 
only knucklehead who earned his CCIE, promptly set it on a shelf, and didn't 
put it to work for me.

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 6:38 PM Peter Slow 
mailto:peter.s...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Anthony,
Congratulations  on your fifth IE anniversary! It’s very nice of you to 
create and provide this guide to everyone. Thanks for creating this!

-Pete

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 12:27 Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway%2bcisco-v...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:
Ok, so this is kind of big news for me, so I thought I'd share it with all of 
you; current and future CCIEs.

I got my CCIE Collaboration (45633) five years ago, and had always been told 
that I would receive preferred treatment when opening TAC cases.

Now, I didn't know how to verify that statement, so I just assumed it was 
happening.  Its not unreasonable to assume this was an automatic association.  
Come to find out

Re: [cisco-voip] CCX Editor Step Properties

[Matthew Loraditch]

I’ve seen it editing scripts locally, in the repository, versions old and new.


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of Johnson, Tim
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 11:47 AM
To: Anthony Holloway 
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CCX Editor Step Properties

Yeah, it’s still an issue in 12.0. Right now it’s opening properties for me in 
1-2 seconds, other times it’s 10.

Would be nice if they did a full makeover of the tool, but I don’t expect it.

From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Anthony Holloway
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 11:11 AM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>>
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CCX Editor Step Properties

I would like to know this too!  Seems to be different lengths of delay 
depending on a few factors, however, I have not nailed down what those factors 
are.  If it happened more often, I'd put some time into it, but since it's 
generally quick-ish, I ignore it.

I have one system I access exclusively via AnyConnect, and it's running 
11.6(2), and it's god awful slow.  Just clicking Add on the Set Enterprise Call 
Info step takes like 10-20 seconds for the dialog box to pop open.

On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 9:51 AM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
Is there anyway on this earth to make this load faster???  Currently painfully 
going through a script and setting up new parameters and slowly dying of 
impatience as I click properties and wait a seeming eternity for the window to 
open.
This has been a pet peeve forever.

Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: 
www.heliontechnologies.com<https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heliontechnologies.com%2F=02%7C01%7Cjohns10t%40cmich.edu%7C61a72178d9d3491ccda708d741017d26%7Cc871bc6e7cc64a57a4eb22309fc34963%7C1%7C1%7C637049346964927011=O5AySPzP4XZUao9ZBeMCfXN5ewcNoHjJFI9W%2BDUXu9E%3D=0>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion 
Technologies]<https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heliontechnologies.com%2F=02%7C01%7Cjohns10t%40cmich.edu%7C61a72178d9d3491ccda708d741017d26%7Cc871bc6e7cc64a57a4eb22309fc34963%7C1%7C1%7C637049346964937009=OcZ7dlmW3Yc1PHlM%2FwcyaTiJ4qn%2BpTqou1EUFG5hBzo%3D=0>
[Facebook]<https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffacebook.com%2Fheliontech=02%7C01%7Cjohns10t%40cmich.edu%7C61a72178d9d3491ccda708d741017d26%7Cc871bc6e7cc64a57a4eb22309fc34963%7C1%7C1%7C637049346964937009=2MvVg0fVpgjFP6OXD7MDhkRfa8CMIo0ZP%2BEiRucG%2Bms%3D=0>
[Twitter]<https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fheliontech=02%7C01%7Cjohns10t%40cmich.edu%7C61a72178d9d3491ccda708d741017d26%7Cc871bc6e7cc64a57a4eb22309fc34963%7C1%7C0%7C637049346964937009=nlTG8Oymo8kP36e5INqx5y%2BC643u4H%2F3A4oQvUveCjk%3D=0>
[LinkedIn]<https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fcompany%2Fhelion-technologies=02%7C01%7Cjohns10t%40cmich.edu%7C61a72178d9d3491ccda708d741017d26%7Cc871bc6e7cc64a57a4eb22309fc34963%7C1%7C1%7C637049346964946999=c3xOZGNqRYZaOE4GqxX13Y3LEBCF4asSGP%2FPfdexexs%3D=0>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip<https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpuck.nether.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcisco-voip=02%7C01%7Cjohns10t%40cmich.edu%7C61a72178d9d3491ccda708d741017d26%7Cc871bc6e7cc64a57a4eb22309fc34963%7C1%7C1%7C637049346964946999=Gyp4sdx75JSUmJcWFFNicWL%2Brg5h3IOr4auKsiEAw10%3D=0>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] Your Associated Webex Sites

[Matthew Loraditch]

Oh, Interesting. Everyone we have is on CI and Control Hub, so I don’t see 
other sites.


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Brian Meade 
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 9:25 AM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
Cc: Anthony Holloway ; Charles Goldsmith 
; Cisco VoIP Group 
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Your Associated Webex Sites

I think the issue he's talking about is when logging in to something such as 
the Webex Meetings App.  After entering your email address, you get a list of 
sites to choose from.  Technically you could enter anyone's email address and 
see what Webex sites they have an account on.

This mostly seems to be Site Admin sites since you can't have the same email in 
2 different control hub organizations.

On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 8:15 AM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
The only list I can think of is behind the sign in screen for webex admin and 
it only lists the accounts you have been given access to so I’m not sure how or 
why this would ever be a problem? It’s no different than looking at my deal 
list in CCW or say your accounting departments list of accounts? Unless I’m 
missing what you are thinking about?


Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Anthony Holloway
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 8:11 AM
To: Charles Goldsmith mailto:w...@woka.us>>
Cc: Cisco VoIP Group 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Your Associated Webex Sites

Correct, mostly for Partners, since:

A) We have a higher quantity than end customers
B) The list of sites acts like a list of customers we do business with (past, 
current and future)
C) Lists off all end customer sites too (which, depending on how the site names 
are being used, could give insight into the business; E.g., divisions, project 
names, future name changes indicating: splits, mergers, re-branding, etc.

However, I would think it would apply to end customers themselves too.  Not 
only for option C above, but I can also see a situation where if two customer 
names were put side-by-side on the same list, that could cause an issue.

On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 1:04 AM Charles Goldsmith 
mailto:w...@woka.us>> wrote:
Lelio, I think this mainly applies to partners, since we can see our customer 
sites.

Anthony, I don't think there is a public listing of your sites, not that I've 
seen anyway.

On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 12:07 AM Lelio Fulgenzi 
mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>> wrote:

I’m not quite sure I understand the question.

Are you asking about a public index of sites?

I know that configuration-wise, you can choose to list meetings on a site. 
We’ve chosen to not do that. So the worst that can happen is some gets to our 
WebEx landing page.

I’m not sure what hiding a site helps with. Or helps deter.

I mean, I’ve got our site listed on our service pages. They’re not restricted, 
so anyone can find it.

Logins are protected by SSO, so we’ve got that going too. Protection-wise, I 
mean.

Is there something I’m missing?

Are you gonna make me loose sleep now!??? :)

-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<mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>

www.uoguelph.ca/ccs<http://www.uoguelph.ca/ccs> | @UofGCCS on Instagram, 
Twitter and Facebook


On Sep 8, 2019, at 2:45 PM, Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com>> wrote:
All,

I want to take the pulse on a topic here, relating to your list of associated 
Webex sites, and whether or not they are private to you, or if they should be 
public information.

I was talking with a colleague about this ever growing list of customers we 
work with being cataloged by Webex in the fact that we keep getting associated 
to more and more customers, and what potential issue this may cause if the site 
list were to be viewed by just anyone on the internet.

Would you want your site list (whether end customer or partner admin) protected 
from view of others, or is it not that big of a deal?

And I guess as a follow up, is this list protected today, or is there a means 
by which my list can be exposed to the public relatively easily?
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.net

Re: [cisco-voip] Your Associated Webex Sites

[Matthew Loraditch]

Well how would you get access??? That’s the part I don’t understand. You aren’t 
getting access unless I give it to you or you work for Cisco in the appropriate 
areas


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Anthony Holloway 
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 9:24 AM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
Cc: Charles Goldsmith ; Cisco VoIP Group 

Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Your Associated Webex Sites

But what if I did have access to your list?  Of Webex sites, deals in CCW or 
accounting dept accounts?  Would that be a problem for you?  It kind of sounds 
like you're saying it wouldn't.

On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 7:14 AM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
The only list I can think of is behind the sign in screen for webex admin and 
it only lists the accounts you have been given access to so I’m not sure how or 
why this would ever be a problem? It’s no different than looking at my deal 
list in CCW or say your accounting departments list of accounts? Unless I’m 
missing what you are thinking about?


Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Anthony Holloway
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 8:11 AM
To: Charles Goldsmith mailto:w...@woka.us>>
Cc: Cisco VoIP Group 
mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Your Associated Webex Sites

Correct, mostly for Partners, since:

A) We have a higher quantity than end customers
B) The list of sites acts like a list of customers we do business with (past, 
current and future)
C) Lists off all end customer sites too (which, depending on how the site names 
are being used, could give insight into the business; E.g., divisions, project 
names, future name changes indicating: splits, mergers, re-branding, etc.

However, I would think it would apply to end customers themselves too.  Not 
only for option C above, but I can also see a situation where if two customer 
names were put side-by-side on the same list, that could cause an issue.

On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 1:04 AM Charles Goldsmith 
mailto:w...@woka.us>> wrote:
Lelio, I think this mainly applies to partners, since we can see our customer 
sites.

Anthony, I don't think there is a public listing of your sites, not that I've 
seen anyway.

On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 12:07 AM Lelio Fulgenzi 
mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>> wrote:

I’m not quite sure I understand the question.

Are you asking about a public index of sites?

I know that configuration-wise, you can choose to list meetings on a site. 
We’ve chosen to not do that. So the worst that can happen is some gets to our 
WebEx landing page.

I’m not sure what hiding a site helps with. Or helps deter.

I mean, I’ve got our site listed on our service pages. They’re not restricted, 
so anyone can find it.

Logins are protected by SSO, so we’ve got that going too. Protection-wise, I 
mean.

Is there something I’m missing?

Are you gonna make me loose sleep now!??? :)

-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<mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>

www.uoguelph.ca/ccs<http://www.uoguelph.ca/ccs> | @UofGCCS on Instagram, 
Twitter and Facebook


On Sep 8, 2019, at 2:45 PM, Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com>> wrote:
All,

I want to take the pulse on a topic here, relating to your list of associated 
Webex sites, and whether or not they are private to you, or if they should be 
public information.

I was talking with a colleague about this ever growing list of customers we 
work with being cataloged by Webex in the fact that we keep getting associated 
to more and more customers, and what potential issue this may cause if the site 
list were to be viewed by just anyone on the internet.

Would you want your site list (whether end customer or partner admin) protected 
from view of others, or is it not that big of a deal?

And I guess as a follow up, is this list protected today, or is there a means 
by which my list can be exposed to the public relatively easily?
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
___
cisco-voip mailin

Re: [cisco-voip] Your Associated Webex Sites

[Matthew Loraditch]

The only list I can think of is behind the sign in screen for webex admin and 
it only lists the accounts you have been given access to so I’m not sure how or 
why this would ever be a problem? It’s no different than looking at my deal 
list in CCW or say your accounting departments list of accounts? Unless I’m 
missing what you are thinking about?


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of Anthony 
Holloway
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 8:11 AM
To: Charles Goldsmith 
Cc: Cisco VoIP Group 
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Your Associated Webex Sites

Correct, mostly for Partners, since:

A) We have a higher quantity than end customers
B) The list of sites acts like a list of customers we do business with (past, 
current and future)
C) Lists off all end customer sites too (which, depending on how the site names 
are being used, could give insight into the business; E.g., divisions, project 
names, future name changes indicating: splits, mergers, re-branding, etc.

However, I would think it would apply to end customers themselves too.  Not 
only for option C above, but I can also see a situation where if two customer 
names were put side-by-side on the same list, that could cause an issue.

On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 1:04 AM Charles Goldsmith 
mailto:w...@woka.us>> wrote:
Lelio, I think this mainly applies to partners, since we can see our customer 
sites.

Anthony, I don't think there is a public listing of your sites, not that I've 
seen anyway.

On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 12:07 AM Lelio Fulgenzi 
mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>> wrote:

I’m not quite sure I understand the question.

Are you asking about a public index of sites?

I know that configuration-wise, you can choose to list meetings on a site. 
We’ve chosen to not do that. So the worst that can happen is some gets to our 
WebEx landing page.

I’m not sure what hiding a site helps with. Or helps deter.

I mean, I’ve got our site listed on our service pages. They’re not restricted, 
so anyone can find it.

Logins are protected by SSO, so we’ve got that going too. Protection-wise, I 
mean.

Is there something I’m missing?

Are you gonna make me loose sleep now!??? :)

-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<mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>

www.uoguelph.ca/ccs<http://www.uoguelph.ca/ccs> | @UofGCCS on Instagram, 
Twitter and Facebook


On Sep 8, 2019, at 2:45 PM, Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com>> wrote:
All,

I want to take the pulse on a topic here, relating to your list of associated 
Webex sites, and whether or not they are private to you, or if they should be 
public information.

I was talking with a colleague about this ever growing list of customers we 
work with being cataloged by Webex in the fact that we keep getting associated 
to more and more customers, and what potential issue this may cause if the site 
list were to be viewed by just anyone on the internet.

Would you want your site list (whether end customer or partner admin) protected 
from view of others, or is it not that big of a deal?

And I guess as a follow up, is this list protected today, or is there a means 
by which my list can be exposed to the public relatively easily?
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] Install Patch disconcerting.CSCvq17528_vmtools_initramfs_v1.0.cop.sgn

[Matthew Loraditch]

It should probably be written better. They are likely referring to standalone 
PLM/ELM.

PLM/ELM is coresident on every CUCM/UCXN install between 9 and 12 so it’d be 
impossible to find a server w/o it.


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of Reto Gassmann
Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 4:47 AM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-voip] Install Patch 
disconcerting.CSCvq17528_vmtools_initramfs_v1.0.cop.sgn

Hello all

We have a CUCM 10.5.2.11900-3 and want to install the patch.
I read in the release notes (Important Notes) that this patch does not apply to 
PLM/ELM.
I have the PLM running on the Publisher node. Can I install this patch or is 
that also not supported?

Thanks a lot
Regards Reto

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

Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM SU release cycle

[Matthew Loraditch]

I heard this in a preso. Customers were not moving to .0 releases because they 
were perceived to be bad and waiting for .5 or .1 type releases. The defect 
rates though are not much if any different these days and they won’t want to be 
making releases that nobody uses.


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of Anthony 
Holloway
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 10:16 AM
To: Ryan Huff 
Cc: Charles Goldsmith ; cisco-voip voyp list 

Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM SU release cycle

Why not just all Major versions all the time?  Google Chrome is on version 76.

But seriously though, anyone got a reference to this announcement?  I didn't 
see it in the cisco live preso linked earlier.

If not, what's the reported reason for dropping minor release numbers?

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 5:40 AM Ryan Huff 
mailto:ryanh...@outlook.com>> wrote:
After 12.5, no more “.5” releases, it’ll just be major versions (and the SUs in 
between). After 12.5 we skip 13 and go right to 14 (then presumably, 15 after 
that).
Sent from my iPhone


On Aug 15, 2019, at 02:05, Anthony Holloway 
mailto:avholloway%2bcisco-v...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:

What's going on with .5 releases?  I don't think I heard about that.

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 11:16 PM Charles Goldsmith 
mailto:w...@woka.us>> wrote:
Yeah, I think with the move away from the .5 releases, we'll be getting more 
SU's and less major releases.

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:58 PM Ki Wi 
mailto:kiwi.vo...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Group,
in the past , the SU release is every 6 months (usually longer than that, 
approximately twice a year maximum) but now Cisco is changing to every 2 months?

Reference : Page 20 of the link
https://www.ciscolive.com/c/dam/r/ciscolive/us/docs/2019/pdf/PSOCOL-1000.pdf<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ciscolive.com%2Fc%2Fdam%2Fr%2Fciscolive%2Fus%2Fdocs%2F2019%2Fpdf%2FPSOCOL-1000.pdf=02%7C01%7C%7C8f229ab7944c4083959608d72146906c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637014459258610309=NarczWk%2BTZBuID%2FEv3VbK%2FaimdV%2BVqiQMWCvAFw6zJU%3D=0>


--
Regards,
Ki Wi
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpuck.nether.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcisco-voip=02%7C01%7C%7C8f229ab7944c4083959608d72146906c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637014459258620303=LZk7sC4c%2BRgO5tN6qEwE8KNJe6%2Bzc9%2Bsq2f4lYHoGVY%3D=0>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpuck.nether.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcisco-voip=02%7C01%7C%7C8f229ab7944c4083959608d72146906c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637014459258630302=Fzo5JMhFkhfYFgP9f2M2PuiHp7RIAJTtoowm5b%2FtSvA%3D=0>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpuck.nether.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcisco-voipdata=02%7C01%7C%7C8f229ab7944c4083959608d72146906c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637014459258670341sdata=2Ovozm%2FGSCWnNZNpQ4h0zz4VcUi5L%2B3gr1OsZb8FD9M%3Dreserved=0
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] Webex Control Hub and Room Kit Mailboxes

[Matthew Loraditch]

We do it like Lelio.


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of Lelio 
Fulgenzi
Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 1:40 PM
To: Jonathan Charles ; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Webex Control Hub and Room Kit Mailboxes

I have been thinking about this. My thought is this:


  *   If the room kit is at all portable, like on a cart, make them separate
  *   If the room kit is part of the room, use the same email address



---
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<mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>

www.uoguelph.ca/ccs<http://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 Jonathan Charles
Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 1:03 PM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
Subject: [cisco-voip] Webex Control Hub and Room Kit Mailboxes

Customer asked a question and I am curious what best practices are...

Customer has room resources in O365 and is adding video systems to those 
rooms...

Should the video units get a separate calendar room room resource, or should it 
share the same room resource email ID in Webex Control Hub?

My concern is the two entities (room and room kit) responding to the invite and 
causing some conflict.

If we use two different room resource mailboxes, users would invite one and not 
the other...

What are the best practices here?



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

Re: [cisco-voip] UC 12.5 zero out report

[Matthew Loraditch]

No it’s not

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: cisco-voip  on behalf of Anthony 
Holloway 
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 5:10:16 PM
To: Lelio Fulgenzi 
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net 
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UC 12.5 zero out report

Really, bulk edit is gone in 12.x?

Neither of the release notes for CUC 12.0 and 12.5 mention this in the What's 
New and Changed sections.

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/unified-communications/unity-connection/products-release-notes-list.html

On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 3:47 PM Lelio Fulgenzi 
mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>> wrote:
Are you looking to set them? Or to just see what they are?

You can use 
http://ciscounitytools.com/Applications/CxN/UserDataDump/UserDataDump.html to 
see what they are.

But I don’t think you can set them.

There used to be a bulk edit option in the gui, but that’s gone! Only BAT 
remains. And none of the CSV file definitions I can find support caller input.


---
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<mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>

www.uoguelph.ca/ccs<http://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 Scott Voll
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 4:27 PM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
Subject: [cisco-voip] UC 12.5 zero out report

What is the easiest way to get all users in UC 12.5's Zero out option.

I'm not seeing it in the BAT Export.

other ideas?

Thanks

Scott

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

Re: [cisco-voip] Do you need TMS to get OBTP

[Matthew Loraditch]

If you are doing booking in outlook you will need TMS XE


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: Jonathan Charles 
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 12:39 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch 
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Do you need TMS to get OBTP

OK, do we need TMS XE as well, or can the Calendar Connector handle it? (they 
are O365)


Thanks!


On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 11:36 AM Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:
You need TMS. Something has to publish the schedule to the endpoints, on prem 
that’s TMS. In the cloud that’s Webex.


Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>
[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>
[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Jonathan Charles
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 12:34 PM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
Subject: [cisco-voip] Do you need TMS to get OBTP

Have a customer with CUCM 10.5 and they want to register video endpoints 
locally to CCM.

They do not have TMS, but they want OBTP... can we just install an Expressway 
Connector and use the Webex Hybrid cloud to use @webex and @meet to get OBTP 
without TMS?



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

Re: [cisco-voip] Do you need TMS to get OBTP

[Matthew Loraditch]

You need TMS. Something has to publish the schedule to the endpoints, on prem 
that’s TMS. In the cloud that’s Webex.


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of Jonathan 
Charles
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 12:34 PM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-voip] Do you need TMS to get OBTP

Have a customer with CUCM 10.5 and they want to register video endpoints 
locally to CCM.

They do not have TMS, but they want OBTP... can we just install an Expressway 
Connector and use the Webex Hybrid cloud to use @webex and @meet to get OBTP 
without TMS?



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