Re: [cisco-voip] Questions about in-room controls and macros

2019-10-08 Thread Anthony Holloway
I have never done this before, but according to:

Integrated, Automated Meetings Rooms with CE xAPI and Macros - DEVNET-2071


Yes they run as soon as you enable them, and yes they can just do nothing
until a certain triggering event occurs.

Yes you can load multiple macros on a system.  You can enable them
individually too.  Just be sure to save it first, else you wont be able to
enable it.  See below where I have two creatively named macros, doing
amazing things, and one is enabled while the other is not.

[image: image.png]

On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 11:44 AM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:

>
> I'm going through the tutorials and unless I've missed something, like an
> introduction (which I'll look for again), I had a couple of questions...
>
>
>   *   Are macros always "running" ? It seems like this is the case... but
> a Macro can run and listen without doing anything until a certain action
> happens
>   *   Is there just one macro loaded per system or can you load multiple
> macros? The GUI seems a bit confusing
>
> Lelio
>
> ---
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A. | Senior Analyst
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram,
> Twitter and Facebook
>
> [University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


Re: [cisco-voip] SIP Domain substitution

2019-10-04 Thread Anthony Holloway
Wait, I thought this was for other businesses to call you.  Are you saying
that to call within your own cloud you have to dial that giant URI?  Is
there no directory, or extension dialing?  Clearly, I have not done a
single Webex calling deployment yet.

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 10:06 PM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:

>
> Ok. Looking at it from the other way around, could I create a macro(?) on
> the cloud registered devices that ask for a 5 digit extension and then add
> the appropriate SIP domain to the extension to place the call?
>
> *-sent from mobile device-*
>
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 <519-824-4120;56354> | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
> On Oct 4, 2019, at 10:32 PM, Ryan Huff  wrote:
>
> Webex Hybrid Calling (with Expressway B2B), could in theory, help
> accomplish this. The codec is still cloud registered, though Hybrid calling
> would allow for an on-prem URI to be associated with the Webex remote
> destination of the codec.
>
> The call would come into the on-prem URI via B2B like normal, and assuming
> the Hybrid integration was setup correctly, ring the Webex remote
> destination which rings the cloud registered codec.
>
> It’s a little bit of an ugly trombone, but it does work..
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 4, 2019, at 22:09, Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
>
> 
>
> Darn. Double darn.
>
> Let’s hope webex offers up custom domain registration for devices soon.
>
> ‘Cause room...@acme.rooms.webex.com is a bit much.
>
> *-sent from mobile device-*
>
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 <519-824-4120;56354> | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs
> 
>  |
> @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
> On Oct 4, 2019, at 9:05 PM, Ryan Huff  wrote:
>
> What it sounds like you are trying to do to me, is allow the call to
> ultimately setup with a URI different than the URI that was dialed, without
> the calling party being the wiser.
>
> DNS won’t be able to do anything with regards to that I don’t think,
> because it really sounds like you’re trying to manipulate/transform the
> called URI, and you’ll need something to interact with the SIP message
> stack for that I’d think.
>
> You can create a round robin A record, that resolves to multiple IP
> addresses, so when the client looks up the DNS SRV, it receives multiple
> targets to try before considering the SRV target “unreachable” (SRV weights
> and priorities determine the ordering of the target addresses resolved for
> the client). However, this won’t have the ability to change the called URI,
> which is ultimately what I think you’re attempting in the scenario (DNS and
> SIP messages are on different networking layers).
>
> As Dave mentioned below, Expressway or a LUA script (sip normalization) in
> CUCM seems to be uniquely qualified for what you’re wanting to do.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 4, 2019, at 20:40, Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
>
> 
>
> I’ve seen some references to Cisco SIP proxy server.
>
> Would that help?
>
> *-sent from mobile device-*
>
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 <519-824-4120;56354> | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs
> 
>  |
> @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
> On Oct 4, 2019, at 7:46 PM, Ryan Huff  wrote:
>
> According to RFC 2782 (https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2782.txt
> ),
> it does not, under the “Target Definition”; “there must be one or more
> address records for this name, the name must 

Re: [cisco-voip] SIP Domain substitution

2019-10-04 Thread Anthony Holloway
On a Friday night no less.

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 10:08 PM Ryan Huff  wrote:

> Come on... we are geeks here we are going to run this down every
> possible  avenue regardless :)
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 4, 2019, at 23:06, Anthony Holloway <
> avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 
> I think Lelio was wondering about a pure cloud registered device, and then
> simply purchasing a vanity domain to overlay on top of the ugly webex one.
>
> You knowlike URL shortening
> <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fblog.rebrandly.com%2Fthe-history-of-url-shorteners%2F=02%7C01%7C%7C4df4b81e7de446bcd2fa08d749410008%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637058415823445677=BK7X5LPEj%2FERkvJhhoKkxhGYbUFaMYDYuHIE3rjPGsE%3D=0>
> .
>
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:57 PM NateCCIE  wrote:
>
>> Doesn’t cucm have the ability to look at the user portion of the URI
>> only?  For like when you’re routing to a DN?  Or I think you can add the
>> short domain to the list of the CUCM “owned” domains in enterprise
>> parameters.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Ryan Huff 
>> *Sent:* Friday, October 4, 2019 8:51 PM
>> *To:* NateCCIE 
>> *Cc:* Lelio Fulgenzi ; cisco-voip voyp list <
>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] SIP Domain substitution
>>
>>
>>
>> Hey Nate ... the original ask I think, was to do it all with DNS only and
>> no intervention at layer 4, which to my knowledge, DNS alone couldn’t do.
>>
>>
>>
>> Expressway search rule, CUCM LUA script... etc could all do it in reality.
>>
>>
>>
>> However, the actual goal appears to be dialing a Webex cloud registered
>> codec, using a non cloud uri (...@rooms.webex.com), and for that Webex
>> Hybrid calling with Expressway B2B would get you there, and also checks the
>> “no additional transformation needed” box.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 4, 2019, at 22:41, NateCCIE  wrote:
>>
>>  I am not thinking right?  Can’t a dns srv get the call routed to a
>> specific host? Then a quick expressway transform to change the domain, and
>> you’re done.
>>
>>
>>
>> Think of it as a different internal domain va external domain.
>>
>>
>>
>> f...@company.com does goes to expressway.companyinfrastructuredomain.com
>> <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fexpressway.companyinfrastructuredomain.com=02%7C01%7C%7C4df4b81e7de446bcd2fa08d749410008%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637058415823445677=26dr97QxoCEhEb11y0lmKT7btioRrDIgcTh7f0lpp%2FQ%3D=0>
>> which does a quick trans to foo@internal.local
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 4, 2019, at 8:36 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> Interesting. I’ll have to look into that.  Thx.
>>
>> *-sent from mobile device-*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>>
>> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>>
>> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
>> N1G 2W1
>>
>> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 <519-824-4120;56354> | le...@uoguelph.ca
>>
>>
>>
>> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs
>> <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uoguelph.ca%2Fccs=02%7C01%7C%7C4df4b81e7de446bcd2fa08d749410008%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637058415823455686=6OmIEsttbas7XV2w7vZ6PFeC7tYVDLvVx%2FTGUFyxjbE%3D=0>
>>  |
>> @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>>
>>
>> On Oct 4, 2019, at 10:32 PM, Ryan Huff  wrote:
>>
>> Webex Hybrid Calling (with Expressway B2B), could in theory, help
>> accomplish this. The codec is still cloud registered, though Hybrid calling
>> would allow for an on-prem URI to be associated with the Webex remote
>> destination of the codec.
>>
>>
>>
>> The call would come into the on-prem URI via B2B like normal, and
>> assuming the Hybrid integration was setup correctly, ring the Webex remote
>> destination which rings the cloud registered codec.
>>
>>
>>
>> It’s a little bit of an ugly trombone, but it does work..
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 4, 2019, at 22:09, Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>>
&g

Re: [cisco-voip] SIP Domain substitution

2019-10-04 Thread Anthony Holloway
I think Lelio was wondering about a pure cloud registered device, and then
simply purchasing a vanity domain to overlay on top of the ugly webex one.

You knowlike URL shortening
.

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:57 PM NateCCIE  wrote:

> Doesn’t cucm have the ability to look at the user portion of the URI
> only?  For like when you’re routing to a DN?  Or I think you can add the
> short domain to the list of the CUCM “owned” domains in enterprise
> parameters.
>
>
>
> *From:* Ryan Huff 
> *Sent:* Friday, October 4, 2019 8:51 PM
> *To:* NateCCIE 
> *Cc:* Lelio Fulgenzi ; cisco-voip voyp list <
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] SIP Domain substitution
>
>
>
> Hey Nate ... the original ask I think, was to do it all with DNS only and
> no intervention at layer 4, which to my knowledge, DNS alone couldn’t do.
>
>
>
> Expressway search rule, CUCM LUA script... etc could all do it in reality.
>
>
>
> However, the actual goal appears to be dialing a Webex cloud registered
> codec, using a non cloud uri (...@rooms.webex.com), and for that Webex
> Hybrid calling with Expressway B2B would get you there, and also checks the
> “no additional transformation needed” box.
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> On Oct 4, 2019, at 22:41, NateCCIE  wrote:
>
>  I am not thinking right?  Can’t a dns srv get the call routed to a
> specific host? Then a quick expressway transform to change the domain, and
> you’re done.
>
>
>
> Think of it as a different internal domain va external domain.
>
>
>
> f...@company.com does goes to expressway.companyinfrastructuredomain.com
> which does a quick trans to foo@internal.local
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> On Oct 4, 2019, at 8:36 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
>
> 
>
>
>
> Interesting. I’ll have to look into that.  Thx.
>
> *-sent from mobile device-*
>
>
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 <519-824-4120;56354> | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs
> 
>  |
> @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
>
> On Oct 4, 2019, at 10:32 PM, Ryan Huff  wrote:
>
> Webex Hybrid Calling (with Expressway B2B), could in theory, help
> accomplish this. The codec is still cloud registered, though Hybrid calling
> would allow for an on-prem URI to be associated with the Webex remote
> destination of the codec.
>
>
>
> The call would come into the on-prem URI via B2B like normal, and assuming
> the Hybrid integration was setup correctly, ring the Webex remote
> destination which rings the cloud registered codec.
>
>
>
> It’s a little bit of an ugly trombone, but it does work..
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> On Oct 4, 2019, at 22:09, Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
>
> 
>
>
>
> Darn. Double darn.
>
>
>
> Let’s hope webex offers up custom domain registration for devices soon.
>
>
>
> ‘Cause room...@acme.rooms.webex.com is a bit much.
>
> *-sent from mobile device-*
>
>
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 <519-824-4120;56354> | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs
> 
>  |
> @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
>
> On Oct 4, 2019, at 9:05 PM, Ryan Huff  wrote:
>
> What it sounds like you are trying to do to me, is allow the call to
> ultimately setup with a URI different than the URI that was dialed, without
> the calling party being the wiser.
>
>
>
> DNS won’t be able to do anything with regards to that I don’t think,
> because it really sounds like you’re trying to manipulate/transform the
> called URI, and you’ll need something to interact with the SIP message
> stack for that I’d think.
>
>
>
> You can create a round robin A record, that resolves to multiple IP
> addresses, so when the client looks up the DNS SRV, it receives multiple
> targets to try before considering the SRV target “unreachable” (SRV weights
> and priorities determine the ordering of the target addresses resolved for
> the client). However, this won’t have the ability to change the called URI,
> which is 

[cisco-voip] DNA Multiple Analyzer 11.5+ Broken

2019-10-03 Thread Anthony Holloway
This is probably a pretty obscure area of CUCM, but here goes...

I want to take a list of ELINs, and run them through the multiple analyzer
in DNA, to see if they all get prefixed with 913 appropriately.

However, the version of DNA I am doing this on, is 11.5 and has the
following defect (typos are not my own):

*Do analysis shows viewfile contents in MUltiple Analyzer of DNA Analysis*

*Symptom:*
Go t DNA -> Analysis -> Multiple Analyzer.
Upload the csv file (downloaded from the template and converted to csv
format)
Select a csv file and do view file contents.
We see the output of the file contents.

Then "DO NALYSIS". But we don't see any dna analysis output. Rather we see
the same view file contents again. The URL is also of view file contents.

Source: https://bst.cloudapps.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCuy89525


It's still open too, so I would assume anything new is also affected.

When I look at the source code for what is supposed to happen when I click
the Do Analysis button, it executes the JS function called
doAnalysisForMultiple.

[image: image.png]

That function in the source looks like this (cleaned up a bit):

function doAnalysisForMultiple() {
if (validateFileSelected()) {
if (document.forms[0].learnProgress.value == "true") {
alert("Adding of learned patterns in progress. Please refresh
the page and try again after sometime"); //CCD SAF Changes
} else {

window.open("/dna/viewfilecontents.do?fileName="+document.forms[0].sourceFile.value
,"","toolbar=no,menubar=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,location=no,status=no,width=800,heigth=600");
}
}
}


As you can see, the reason the file contents are displayed, is because
that's how it's coded: viewfilecontents.do.

Just like the function to view the file contents (cleaned up a bit):

function viewSelectedFileContents() {
if (validateFileSelected()) {

window.open("/dna/viewfilecontents.do?fileName="+document.forms[0].sourceFile.value,
"",
"toolbar=no,menubar=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,location=no,status=no,width=800,heigth=600");
}
}


Perhaps this is a copy and paste error?  If so, I'm wondering if you could
look at your various versions for me and post if you have something
different in your doAnalysisForMultiple function.  Something other than the
window.open for the viewfilecontents.do page.

To do so, access the following URL on your CUCM, and then login, followed
by right clicking the page and selecting View Source and then search for
the string: *function doAnalysisForMultiple*

https://your-cucm-pub.company.com/dna/multipleanalyzer.do

I'd like to look at what it might be doing in a different version.

Also, if any Cisco folks could inquire within about the status of this
defect, that would be nice.  I'm kind of surprised to see that it's still
open and not resolved in 12.5.
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


Re: [cisco-voip] what's that support page for support help?

2019-10-03 Thread Anthony Holloway
Bone Apple Tea!

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 10:32 AM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:

> Ugh. Have the stuff is gone.
>
>
>
> ---
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
>
>
> *From:* Lelio Fulgenzi 
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 3, 2019 11:29 AM
> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi ; voyp list, cisco-voip (
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) 
> *Subject:* RE: what's that support page for support help?
>
>
>
> Found it!
>
>
>
> At top right of page, after logging in to CCO, there’s a myCisco link.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Lelio
> Fulgenzi
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 3, 2019 11:22 AM
> *To:* voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) <
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] what's that support page for support help?
>
>
>
>
>
> There used to be a page that you could use to open up a support ticket
> which would, in turn, allow you to open up support tickets for new
> contracts and devices. Basically to update contract access and also fix
> things like, say, not all your webex sites being listed as selectable
> options when opening a ticket.
>
>
>
> I thought everything was moved to the CCW page, but can’t seem to find it.
>
>
>
> Will try the old CSCC page … not sure if that will help.
>
>
>
> Lelio
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
>
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


Re: [cisco-voip] Separate cluster for third party SIP clients with SIP/ICT trunk to production

2019-10-02 Thread Anthony Holloway
Actually I don't know that it doesn't exist, I was just saying I had not
heard of it before.  I am curious if it is, and no one has addressed it yet.

Also, I realize I have a type on this line:

*National Pattern strips + prefixes *#*02 and routes to SIP trunk
(*#*1301212) *

It should include the two-digit prefix

*National Pattern strips + prefixes *#*02 and routes to SIP trunk
(*#*021301212) *

On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 9:07 AM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:

> Thanks for this great information Anthony. Back to work after a few days
> off…
>
>
>
>
>
> As for my harping on the CSS mapping feature, you know, it could have just
> been me making that up in my mind. Although, when I think of it, it could
> be a PBX feature that exists (ROLM -> HICOM) over digital trunks that I
> asked about 15 years ago and faintly recall that it was a feature that
> would be available. Maybe just wishful thinking. Darn.
>
>
>
> I really like your solution for CSS mapping though, using translations. I
> think with a little bit of thought, that could be easily implemented in our
> scenario.
>
>
>
> I was also thinking of extending the solution on the remote cluster such
> that there are two partitions, TPS_Dialable_PT and TPS_NonDialable_PT, and
> the community has the decision to have their third party endpoints be
> dialable or not.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
>
>
> *From:* Anthony Holloway 
> *Sent:* Sunday, September 29, 2019 4:17 PM
> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi 
> *Cc:* Kent Roberts ; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Separate cluster for third party SIP clients
> with SIP/ICT trunk to production
>
>
>
> What is this pass and map CSS info thing you've mentioned twice now?
> That's not something I've ever heard of.  Have you seen that done before,
> or maybe read it somewhere?  I know here are times where more data can be
> transmitted over a SIP/ICT trunk; like in GeoLocation or Anti Tromboning,
> but I've just never heard of this with CSS/Partitions.
>
>
>
> Let's just say it's not possible for sake of argument.  Then, you could
> pass a prefix to the called number, and using translation patterns on the
> terminating cluster, you could switch the CSS.
>
>
>
> E.g., On Net Remote Cluster
>
>
>
> Originating Cluster
>
> Phone CSS is Whatever
>
> Phone dials On Net Pattern e.g., 4000
>
> On Net Pattern prefixes *#*00 and routes to SIP trunk (*#*004000)
>
>
>
> Terminating Cluster
>
> CSS on SIP trunk matches *#*00.! xlate
>
> Xlate strips *#*00 and sets CSS to On Net (4000)
>
> Correct pattern now gets matched as if phone was local to this cluster
>
>
>
> E.g., Local
>
>
>
> Originating Cluster
>
> Phone CSS is Local
>
> Phone dials Local Pattern e.g., \+16125551212
>
> Local Pattern strips + and prefixes *#*01 and routes to SIP trunk
> (*#*0116125551212)
>
>
>
> Terminating Cluster
>
> CSS on SIP trunk matches *#*01.! xlate
>
> Xlate strips *#*01, adds plus, and sets CSS to Local (+16125551212)
>
> Correct pattern now gets matched as if phone was local to this cluster
>
>
>
> E.g., National
>
>
>
> Originating Cluster
>
> Phone CSS is National
>
> Phone dials National Pattern e.g., \+1301212
>
> National Pattern strips + prefixes *#*02 and routes to SIP trunk
> (*#*1301212)
>
>
>
> Terminating Cluster
>
> CSS on SIP trunk matches *#*02.! xlate
>
> Xlate strips *#*02, adds plus, and sets CSS to National (+1301212)
>
> Correct pattern now gets matched as if phone was local to this cluster
>
>
>
> And I think that illustrates the point, barring any typos I might have
> made.
>
>
>
> You would then be able to support 100 CSS mappings with this model..
> Choose a prefix which makes sense for you, but if the SIP CSS on the
> terminating Cluster only can access prefixed patterns, then it could
> literally be anything you want.
>
>
>
> On the topic of the BE6K, just like others have stated, it's the same
> level of effort as "normal" CUCM...because it is a normal CUCM.  A BE6KS is
> too, for what that's worth, however a BE4K is completely different and
> cloud managed like a meraki device.  You might find that the implementat

Re: [cisco-voip] CCX CTI Managers

2019-09-30 Thread Anthony Holloway
Yeah, AXL would only be for configuration pulls and pushes, along with
authentication of users, whereas JTAPI for CTI and RmCm would be real time
signaling about every Agent phone, all lines on every agent phone, all CTI
Route points, and all CTI ports.

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 11:27 AM Myron Young 
wrote:

> Yes it is very interesting indeed. I guess AXL services is less taxing on
> that synchronization between CM and CCX compared to rmcm and CTI
>
> On Sep 30, 2019, at 12:22 PM, Anthony Holloway <
> avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1 James
>
> You get the browser alert message when you just try and move a third CTI
> server over.  You can do it to confirm for yourself, and nothing bad will
> happen, as it prevents you from even moving the third one over.
>
> Interestingly, the code shows us that AXL does not have this limit, but
> CTI and RmCm do:
>
> if (index == 0) {
> formAttribute = "axlCMTotalList";
> selectedAttribute = "axlCMSelectedList";
> document.CCMConfigForm.axlInfoChanged.value = "true";
> } else if (index == 1) {
> formAttribute = "jtapiCMTotalList";
> selectedAttribute = "jtapiCMSelectedList";
> document.CCMConfigForm.jtapiInfoChanged.value = "true";
> } else if (index == 2) {
> formAttribute = "rmcmCMTotalList";
> selectedAttribute = "rmcmCMSelectedList";
> document.CCMConfigForm.rmcmInfoChanged.value = "true";
> }
> if (index != 0 &&
> eval("document.CCMConfigForm."+selectedAttribute+".length") == 2) {
> alert("There can be only 2 entries in the selected list");
> return;
> }
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 10:47 AM James Buchanan 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Myron,
>>
>> I believe you can only have two CTI managers in the list in CCX. When you
>> try to add the third, you'll get an error telling you it can't be done.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> James
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 4:06 PM Myron Young 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> I have just inherited a UCM 9.1 and CCX 9.0 cluster and not sure why but
>>> looks as though only two CTI managers, one subscriber and the publisher,
>>> were selected on the CM configuration page in CCX web admin.
>>>
>>> I just verified call manager and CTI manager services are running on all
>>> subscriber nodes. So now I want to add the other subscriber nodes to the
>>> selected CTI managers list from CCX CM configuration page.
>>>
>>> Does anyone think this would be service impacting? I’m really hesitant
>>> to do any changes at all especially during the day since this system is EOL
>>> and TAC has already indicated they won’t really get involved with any
>>> issues until we upgrade; which is probably 6 months to a year away.
>>> ___
>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>
>> ___
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


Re: [cisco-voip] CCX CTI Managers

2019-09-30 Thread Anthony Holloway
+1 James

You get the browser alert message when you just try and move a third CTI
server over.  You can do it to confirm for yourself, and nothing bad will
happen, as it prevents you from even moving the third one over.

Interestingly, the code shows us that AXL does not have this limit, but CTI
and RmCm do:

if (index == 0) {
formAttribute = "axlCMTotalList";
selectedAttribute = "axlCMSelectedList";
document.CCMConfigForm.axlInfoChanged.value = "true";
} else if (index == 1) {
formAttribute = "jtapiCMTotalList";
selectedAttribute = "jtapiCMSelectedList";
document.CCMConfigForm.jtapiInfoChanged.value = "true";
} else if (index == 2) {
formAttribute = "rmcmCMTotalList";
selectedAttribute = "rmcmCMSelectedList";
document.CCMConfigForm.rmcmInfoChanged.value = "true";
}
if (index != 0 &&
eval("document.CCMConfigForm."+selectedAttribute+".length") == 2) {
alert("There can be only 2 entries in the selected list");
return;
}



On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 10:47 AM James Buchanan 
wrote:

> Hi Myron,
>
> I believe you can only have two CTI managers in the list in CCX. When you
> try to add the third, you'll get an error telling you it can't be done.
>
> Thanks,
>
> James
>
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 4:06 PM Myron Young 
> wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I have just inherited a UCM 9.1 and CCX 9.0 cluster and not sure why but
>> looks as though only two CTI managers, one subscriber and the publisher,
>> were selected on the CM configuration page in CCX web admin.
>>
>> I just verified call manager and CTI manager services are running on all
>> subscriber nodes. So now I want to add the other subscriber nodes to the
>> selected CTI managers list from CCX CM configuration page.
>>
>> Does anyone think this would be service impacting? I’m really hesitant to
>> do any changes at all especially during the day since this system is EOL
>> and TAC has already indicated they won’t really get involved with any
>> issues until we upgrade; which is probably 6 months to a year away.
>> ___
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


Re: [cisco-voip] Separate cluster for third party SIP clients with SIP/ICT trunk to production

2019-09-29 Thread Anthony Holloway
What is this pass and map CSS info thing you've mentioned twice now?
That's not something I've ever heard of.  Have you seen that done before,
or maybe read it somewhere?  I know here are times where more data can be
transmitted over a SIP/ICT trunk; like in GeoLocation or Anti Tromboning,
but I've just never heard of this with CSS/Partitions.

Let's just say it's not possible for sake of argument.  Then, you could
pass a prefix to the called number, and using translation patterns on the
terminating cluster, you could switch the CSS.

E.g., On Net Remote Cluster

Originating Cluster
Phone CSS is Whatever
Phone dials On Net Pattern e.g., 4000
On Net Pattern prefixes *#*00 and routes to SIP trunk (*#*004000)

Terminating Cluster
CSS on SIP trunk matches *#*00.! xlate
Xlate strips *#*00 and sets CSS to On Net (4000)
Correct pattern now gets matched as if phone was local to this cluster

E.g., Local

Originating Cluster
Phone CSS is Local
Phone dials Local Pattern e.g., \+16125551212
Local Pattern strips + and prefixes *#*01 and routes to SIP trunk
(*#*0116125551212)

Terminating Cluster
CSS on SIP trunk matches *#*01.! xlate
Xlate strips *#*01, adds plus, and sets CSS to Local (+16125551212)
Correct pattern now gets matched as if phone was local to this cluster

E.g., National

Originating Cluster
Phone CSS is National
Phone dials National Pattern e.g., \+1301212
National Pattern strips + prefixes *#*02 and routes to SIP trunk
(*#*1301212)

Terminating Cluster
CSS on SIP trunk matches *#*02.! xlate
Xlate strips *#*02, adds plus, and sets CSS to National (+1301212)
Correct pattern now gets matched as if phone was local to this cluster

And I think that illustrates the point, barring any typos I might have made.

You would then be able to support 100 CSS mappings with this model.. Choose
a prefix which makes sense for you, but if the SIP CSS on the terminating
Cluster only can access prefixed patterns, then it could literally be
anything you want.

On the topic of the BE6K, just like others have stated, it's the same level
of effort as "normal" CUCM...because it is a normal CUCM.  A BE6KS is too,
for what that's worth, however a BE4K is completely different and cloud
managed like a meraki device.  You might find that the implementation of
the BE6K is easier for two reasons: 1) Your expectations for it to perform
for you are lower than your production cluster, 2) Managing the VMware side
of it might be easier because it's more of an appliance, and less of a
datacenter object. (E.g., no UCS manager, and no vCenter requirements).

On the topic of just looking at this as a "good idea" I do think that it is
a good idea.  In fact, this idea is very similar to what UCCE deployments
are typically like, where the entire UCCE environment gets its own  CUCM
cluster, separate from the non- Contact Center users and devices.  Or how
you might have an entire VCS/Expressway cluster for registering your video
devices.  Or heck, what's starting to become popular and cloud register all
of your video devices, so you can get rid of on-premise telepresence all
together.  I think this plan of yours falls right inline with those other
scenarios.

On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 7:25 PM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:

>
> I don’t see it being needed in this case. Just two clusters. All off-perm
> resources (if required) would be routed through the main cluster. That
> being said, I’m not up to speed on what the session managers give you. But
> I’d like to avoid additional components.
>
> I envision the simplest of configs. Two partitions. One CSS. (Maybe more
> if there’s a way to pass and map css information across trunks.) one route
> pattern for offnet calls. One route pattern for extensions on the main
> cluster.
>
>
>
> *-sent from mobile device-*
>
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 <519-824-4120;56354> | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
> On Sep 28, 2019, at 8:05 PM, Kent Roberts  wrote:
>
> So no session manager?  Or is that in the mix as well?
>
>
> Kent
>
> On Sep 28, 2019, at 16:50, Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
>
> 
>
> Yup. That’s the plan. I was just wondering if be6k was more “user
> friendly” with fewer configurable options. More like a key system or
> something.
>
> It’s looking more and more like just another cluster. I may even consider
> recommending we “outsource” that.
>
> *-sent from mobile device-*
>
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 <519-824-4120;56354> | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on 

Re: [cisco-voip] CCX Editor Step Properties

2019-09-24 Thread Anthony Holloway
Yeah, I was going to say that!  So RMI is just inherently slow then?  Or is
it specific to the way Cisco implemented it in the editor?

On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 11:15 PM Tanner Ezell 
wrote:

> No, I don't believe so. It shouldn't be reading the file contents (which
> is a shame actually, imagine how useful the input/output mappings dialog
> would be if you could actually select the variables in the scripts)
>
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 7:44 PM Anthony Holloway <
> avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I knew it produced a list of scripts from the repo when opening the call
>> subflow step, but do you know/think it's actually reading the files too?
>> As opposed to just grabbing a list of names?
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 7:43 PM Tanner Ezell 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I wasn't specifically responding to you Bill, just the thread in general
>>> :)
>>>
>>> That being said, it won't be slow if there isn't much data to transfer.
>>> The script editor is talking in java object terms, so small data can be
>>> quite "big" and slow over the transport medium, it is also why DB resources
>>> and such can take time on those steps. (also for the call sub flow, it
>>> tries to grab all the scripts on the system, the more there are the slower
>>> it will be).
>>>
>>> VPN only compounds the already inherently slow nature of the
>>> communication.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 5:33 PM Bill Talley  wrote:
>>>
>>>> I’m not disagreeing with you.  Im saying there are scenarios where it’s
>>>> slow even if you’re on the local LAN.  You’re saying that’s NOT the case
>>>> for you in any scenario?
>>>>
>>>> Sent from an iPhone mobile device with very tiny touchscreen input
>>>> keys.  Please excude my typtos.
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 24, 2019, at 7:11 PM, Tanner Ezell 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It will always be an issue. It uses RMI to pull data from the UCCX
>>>> which is especially slow over VPN.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 9:58 AM Bill Talley  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Good idea, but not always true.  I have several locations with scripts
>>>>> that contain REST and DB steps.  These take 7-10 second to open properties
>>>>> on any step regardless of whether I’m onsite or remote.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from an iPhone mobile device with very tiny touchscreen input
>>>>> keys.  Please excude my typtos.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 24, 2019, at 11:53 AM, UC Penguin  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It’s much faster if the client is run at the same site as the uccx
>>>>> server (RDP to a machine with the editor installed).
>>>>>
>>>>> Not an option that’s possible for all, but there is a huge
>>>>> improvement. Especially when using the debugger.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 24, 2019, at 10:52, Matthew Loraditch <
>>>>> mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I’ve seen it editing scripts locally, in the repository, versions old
>>>>> and new.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Matthew Loraditch​
>>>>> Sr. Network Engineer
>>>>> p: *443.541.1518* <443.541.1518>
>>>>> w: *www.heliontechnologies.com* <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
>>>>>  |  e: *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  *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.

Re: [cisco-voip] CCX Editor Step Properties

2019-09-24 Thread Anthony Holloway
I knew it produced a list of scripts from the repo when opening the call
subflow step, but do you know/think it's actually reading the files too?
As opposed to just grabbing a list of names?

On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 7:43 PM Tanner Ezell  wrote:

> I wasn't specifically responding to you Bill, just the thread in general :)
>
> That being said, it won't be slow if there isn't much data to transfer.
> The script editor is talking in java object terms, so small data can be
> quite "big" and slow over the transport medium, it is also why DB resources
> and such can take time on those steps. (also for the call sub flow, it
> tries to grab all the scripts on the system, the more there are the slower
> it will be).
>
> VPN only compounds the already inherently slow nature of the
> communication.
>
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 5:33 PM Bill Talley  wrote:
>
>> I’m not disagreeing with you.  Im saying there are scenarios where it’s
>> slow even if you’re on the local LAN.  You’re saying that’s NOT the case
>> for you in any scenario?
>>
>> Sent from an iPhone mobile device with very tiny touchscreen input keys.
>> Please excude my typtos.
>>
>> On Sep 24, 2019, at 7:11 PM, Tanner Ezell  wrote:
>>
>> It will always be an issue. It uses RMI to pull data from the UCCX which
>> is especially slow over VPN.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 9:58 AM Bill Talley  wrote:
>>
>>> Good idea, but not always true.  I have several locations with scripts
>>> that contain REST and DB steps.  These take 7-10 second to open properties
>>> on any step regardless of whether I’m onsite or remote.
>>>
>>> Sent from an iPhone mobile device with very tiny touchscreen input
>>> keys.  Please excude my typtos.
>>>
>>> On Sep 24, 2019, at 11:53 AM, UC Penguin  wrote:
>>>
>>> It’s much faster if the client is run at the same site as the uccx
>>> server (RDP to a machine with the editor installed).
>>>
>>> Not an option that’s possible for all, but there is a huge improvement.
>>> Especially when using the debugger.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 24, 2019, at 10:52, Matthew Loraditch <
>>> mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I’ve seen it editing scripts locally, in the repository, versions old
>>> and new.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Matthew Loraditch​
>>> Sr. Network Engineer
>>> p: *443.541.1518* <443.541.1518>
>>> w: *www.heliontechnologies.com* <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>  |
>>> e: *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  *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  *On Behalf Of 
>>> *Anthony
>>> Holloway
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 24, 2019 11:11 AM
>>> *To:* Matthew Loraditch 
>>> *Cc:* 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 <
>>> mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Is there anyway on this earth to make this load faster???  Currently
>>> p

Re: [cisco-voip] Is Your CCIE Status on Your Cisco.com Profile?

2019-09-24 Thread Anthony Holloway
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  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 <
> 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  wrote:
>
>> Mine was associated, though I haven’t seen any noticeable TAC
>> improvements.
>>
>> On Sep 24, 2019, at 09:27, Lelio Fulgenzi  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
>>
>>
>>
>> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of 
>> *Anthony
>> Holloway
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 24, 2019 10:22 AM
>> *To:* Peter Slow 
>> *Cc:* Cisco VoIP Group 
>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Is Your CCIE Status on Your 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  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 <
>> avholloway+cisco-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, I was wrong, and for five years, I have
>> been missing out on this benefit.
>>
>>
>>
>> First up, just check if your CCO profile reflects your C

Re: [cisco-voip] Is Your CCIE Status on Your Cisco.com Profile?

2019-09-24 Thread Anthony Holloway
How in the world did that slip through the cracks?  Start power maybe?  No
one wanted to correct him?  Wowza!

On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:32 AM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:

> I prefer Mt. Penguin.
>
>
>
> As does Benadark Cumberband.
>
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GHPNKUMf70=3m18s
>
>
>
> ---
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Anthony
> Holloway
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 24, 2019 11:26 AM
> *To:* Dave, Pavan 
> *Cc:* Cisco VoIP Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Is Your CCIE Status on Your Cisco.com Profile?
>
>
>
> Thanks for the insight!
>
>
>
> Correction to my previous post, I meant to type Mr. Penguin, and not Mt.
> Penguin.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:18 AM Dave, Pavan  wrote:
>
> It’s been a while since my TAC days but CCIE meant you went straight to
> Backbone TAC.  They were considering phasing this out at some point, not
> sure where that went because TAC does key word based routing.
>
>
> There is/was some thinking with customers that backbone = best, but the
> way keywords are distributed this may often times be a disservice to
> getting a speedy resolution. You may have a more skilled engineer, but they
> may not see that type of problem often and it will take them much longer to
> reach a resolution.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Anthony
> Holloway
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 24, 2019 10:09 AM
> *To:* UC Penguin 
> *Cc:* Cisco VoIP Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Is Your CCIE Status on Your Cisco.com Profile?
>
>
>
> *EXTERNAL EMAIL*
>
>
>
>
>
> 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  wrote:
>
> Mine was associated, though I haven’t seen any noticeable TAC improvements.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> * Pavan Dave | Senior Engineer, Contact Center Presidio (NASDAQ: PSDO) |
> presidio.com <http://presidio.com> 7701 Las Colinas Ridge #600, Irving, TX
> 75063 D: 469.464.1283 | C: 832.860.5465 | pd...@presidio.com
> *
>
>
>
> On Sep 24, 2019, at 09:27, Lelio Fulgenzi  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
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Anthony
> Holloway
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 24, 2019 10:22 AM
> *To:* Peter Slow 
> *Cc:* Cisco VoIP Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Is Your CCIE Status on Your 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  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 <
> avholloway+cisco-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 wo

Re: [cisco-voip] Is Your CCIE Status on Your Cisco.com Profile?

2019-09-24 Thread Anthony Holloway
Thanks for the insight!

Correction to my previous post, I meant to type Mr. Penguin, and not Mt.
Penguin.

On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:18 AM Dave, Pavan  wrote:

> It’s been a while since my TAC days but CCIE meant you went straight to
> Backbone TAC.  They were considering phasing this out at some point, not
> sure where that went because TAC does key word based routing.
>
>
> There is/was some thinking with customers that backbone = best, but the
> way keywords are distributed this may often times be a disservice to
> getting a speedy resolution. You may have a more skilled engineer, but they
> may not see that type of problem often and it will take them much longer to
> reach a resolution.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Anthony
> Holloway
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 24, 2019 10:09 AM
> *To:* UC Penguin 
> *Cc:* Cisco VoIP Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Is Your CCIE Status on Your Cisco.com Profile?
>
>
>
> *EXTERNAL EMAIL*
>
>
>
>
>
> 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  wrote:
>
> Mine was associated, though I haven’t seen any noticeable TAC improvements.
>
>
>
> Pavan Dave | Senior Engineer, Contact Center
> Presidio (NASDAQ: PSDO) | presidio.com
> 7701 Las Colinas Ridge #600, Irving, TX 75063
> D: 469.464.1283 | C: 832.860.5465 | pd...@presidio.com
>
>
>
> On Sep 24, 2019, at 09:27, Lelio Fulgenzi  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
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Anthony
> Holloway
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 24, 2019 10:22 AM
> *To:* Peter Slow 
> *Cc:* Cisco VoIP Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Is Your CCIE Status on Your 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  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 <
> avholloway+cisco-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, I was wrong, and for five years, I have
> been missing out on this benefit.
>
>
>
> First up, just check if your CCO profile reflects your CCIE status,
> because it might.
>
>
>
> Head on over to your Cisco.com Profile Account Management page:
>
> https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/about/account.html
>
>
>
> Partners and Customers alike, will click the Customer Profile Manager link.
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
> Then click the Access Management tab
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Then click the CCIE tab
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Now, either one of two things will show here:
>
>
>
> A) If you see a link to the CCIE program, then you're golden, and you
> don't need this guide, sorry to waste your time, but at least you can sleep
> easy tonight.
>
>
>
> *GOOD*
>
> 
>
>
&

Re: [cisco-voip] CCX Editor Step Properties

2019-09-24 Thread Anthony Holloway
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 <
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* <443.541.1518>
> w: *www.heliontechnologies.com*   |
> e: *mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com* 
> [image: Helion Technologies] 
> [image: Facebook] 
> [image: Twitter] 
> [image: LinkedIn] 
> ___
> 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] Is Your CCIE Status on Your Cisco.com Profile?

2019-09-24 Thread Anthony Holloway
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  wrote:

> Mine was associated, though I haven’t seen any noticeable TAC improvements.
>
> On Sep 24, 2019, at 09:27, Lelio Fulgenzi  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
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Anthony
> Holloway
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 24, 2019 10:22 AM
> *To:* Peter Slow 
> *Cc:* Cisco VoIP Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Is Your CCIE Status on Your 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  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 <
> avholloway+cisco-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, I was wrong, and for five years, I have
> been missing out on this benefit.
>
>
>
> First up, just check if your CCO profile reflects your CCIE status,
> because it might.
>
>
>
> Head on over to your Cisco.com Profile Account Management page:
>
> https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/about/account.html
>
>
>
> Partners and Customers alike, will click the Customer Profile Manager link.
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
> Then click the Access Management tab
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Then click the CCIE tab
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Now, either one of two things will show here:
>
>
>
> A) If you see a link to the CCIE program, then you're golden, and you
> don't need this guide, sorry to waste your time, but at least you can sleep
> easy tonight.
>
>
>
> *GOOD*
>
> 
>
>
>
> B) If you see two fields to enter your CCIE Number and Company Name, then
> you are not associated
>
>
>
> *BAD*
>
> 
>
>
>
> So, if this matches what you see, then we need to make sure some things
> line up first before just submitting the information, else it will likely
> just fail.
>
>
>
> Step 1) Check your CCIE Profile
>
>
>
> Go to:
> https://ccie.cloudapps.cisco.com/CCIE/Schedule_Lab/CCIEOnline/CCIEOnline
>
>
>
> Click on Profile, and check your First Name, Last Name, Email and Company
> Name
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Step 2) Check your CCO Profile
>
>
>
> Go to: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/about/account.html (same place we
> started on), and click on Customer Profile Manager
>
>
>
> It should already be on the Personal tab, but if not, click that, and
> check your First Name, Last Name, Email and Company
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> All 4 values should match exactly, and if not, you will need to correct
> them, and how you do that is up to you.  I.e., Which name is correct, or
> email, etc.  Just make them match 100%.
>
>
>
> Step 3) Associate your CCIE to your CCO profile
>
>
>
> Go to: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/about/account.html (we've been here

Re: [cisco-voip] Softkey Template

2019-09-23 Thread Anthony Holloway
I'm not gonna lie, I didn't think it was much more complicated than that.

I googled searched "cisco 8851 remove decline"

And found a forum posting

where someone mentioned this setting on the phone page in CUCM  Admin:

*Actionable Incoming Call Alert*

I tried it out on my 8851 and sure enough, it removed both Decline and
Ignore.

I guess softkey configuration is now spread into two different places.



On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:32 AM Reto Gassmann  wrote:

> Hello Group
>
> We have an issue with IP Phone 8851 and softkey template. We have
> configured a new softkey template and set this as the softkey layout in the
> device configuration. We configured the „Ring In“ state with only the
> Answer Option selected. However, if a call arrives on the phone we see
> Answer, Divert and Ignore.
> We don‘t want the users to be able to send the call with the „Divert“ key
> to the voicemail.
> So what are we missing?
>
> Thanks a lot
> Regards Reto
> ___
> 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] Multicast MOH (MMOH) SRND Question

2019-09-19 Thread Anthony Holloway
Thank you for taking the time to respond Tim.

You have provided me with a clearer insight into the passage, and I am now
in agreement with your explanation.

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 10:29 AM Tim Smith  wrote:

> This looks to be specific to re-broadcasting (which I haven’t had the
> pleasure of playing with yet)
>
>
>
> Looking at the diagram in there. I assume you configure a new source with
> a multicast address on your MOH server.
>
> If it’s set to re-broadcast, it’ll be looking to capture the input stream
> from that address.
>
>
>
> Is it just saying since your MOH server is receiving MMOH on say
> 239.1.1.1:16384
>
> (And would then re-broadcast this as Unicast where required)
>
> It won’t send any multicast on that same address
>
>
>
> But you can configure a multicast address – on that source – which means
> it re-broadcasts the original stream as multicast on a new multicast
> address as well.
>
>
>
> MoH server for re-broadcasting + External Multicast source must be on same
> LAN (or at least have multicast routing connectivity between them) for the
> rebroadcasting – so if your server is receiving on one address, you
> wouldn’t want to be sending out on the same address.
>
>
>
> That’s the way I read it which I think makes sense to me.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Anthony
> Holloway
> *Sent:* Thursday, 19 September 2019 1:00 AM
> *To:* Cisco VoIP Group 
> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] Multicast MOH (MMOH) SRND Question
>
>
>
> I was helping someone troubleshoot a MMOH issue and what was happening was
> that CUCM audio source, MOH Server, and MRG were all setup to do MMOH.
> There was also a hardware MOH device on the network, which was sending MMOH
> on the same IP address (239.1.1.1) as the CUCM MOH Server.
>
>
>
> When I pointed out that this would be a problem, I was shown the following
> statement from the SRND:
>
>
>
> *"If the multicast MoH server and the audio source are configured with the
> same multicast group address, when Phone B is placed on hold, it will
> receive the multicast RTP audio stream (E) from the original multicast
> stream (B) broadcast by the SRST router. In this case the MoH server does
> not send the audio because it is aware that the destination multicast IP
> address group is the same as the external audio source multicast stream (B)
> broadcast by the SRST router."*
>
>
>
> Source:
> https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/srnd/collab11/collab11/media.html#pgfId-1393039
>
>
>
> Now, a TAC case was opened, and TAC said it should have done what the SRND
> is stating, but I am doubtful.  I think the wording in the SRND is poor,
> and that perhaps it only pertains to the Fixed source of 51, and not just
> any source you create.
>
>
>
> So, I'm asking for your understanding and knowledge of how this works, to
> clarify this aspect of MMOH for me.  Please read the entire section of the
> SRND linked, because context is important here.  I only provided a snippet.
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


[cisco-voip] Multicast MOH (MMOH) SRND Question

2019-09-18 Thread Anthony Holloway
I was helping someone troubleshoot a MMOH issue and what was happening was
that CUCM audio source, MOH Server, and MRG were all setup to do MMOH.
There was also a hardware MOH device on the network, which was sending MMOH
on the same IP address (239.1.1.1) as the CUCM MOH Server.

When I pointed out that this would be a problem, I was shown the following
statement from the SRND:


*"If the multicast MoH server and the audio source are configured with the
same multicast group address, when Phone B is placed on hold, it will
receive the multicast RTP audio stream (E) from the original multicast
stream (B) broadcast by the SRST router. In this case the MoH server does
not send the audio because it is aware that the destination multicast IP
address group is the same as the external audio source multicast stream (B)
broadcast by the SRST router."*

Source:
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/srnd/collab11/collab11/media.html#pgfId-1393039

Now, a TAC case was opened, and TAC said it should have done what the SRND
is stating, but I am doubtful.  I think the wording in the SRND is poor,
and that perhaps it only pertains to the Fixed source of 51, and not just
any source you create.

So, I'm asking for your understanding and knowledge of how this works, to
clarify this aspect of MMOH for me.  Please read the entire section of the
SRND linked, because context is important here.  I only provided a snippet.
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


Re: [cisco-voip] what's the NC model of phones?

2019-09-17 Thread Anthony Holloway
So what is that, like it can't be imported and used inside of China?  Or
that it wasn't manufactured in China?

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 3:06 PM Nimloth  wrote:

> Non-China to be more accurate
> W dniu 17 wrz 2019, o 22:05, użytkownik Nimloth 
> napisał:
>>
>> NC = No China
>> W dniu 17 wrz 2019, o 22:02, użytkownik Anthony Holloway <
>> avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> napisał:
>>>
>>> I think everyone is just guessing what NC stands for.  I'd like to think
>>> it's because it's Not Complete, and you have to build it yourself like a
>>> piece of Ikea furniture.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 2:59 PM James Buchanan <
>>> james.buchan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> With much searching, this site:
>>>> https://itprice.com/cisco/cp-8845-nc-k9=.html indicates that the "NC"
>>>> phone is "Non-China" Country of Origin. I don't know that for sure, but I
>>>> thought it was an interesting, undocumented interpretation. At least it
>>>> would explain why it's more expensive.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> James
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 8:47 PM Pawlowski, Adam < aj...@buffalo.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Slightly bigger screen, and no USB port.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I still don’t know why you’d want that unless you need Bluetooth are
>>>>> still security minded (?), or you use the wall mount kit and want the same
>>>>> appearance everywhere?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Also I assume it can receive video so it can be used in a lobby or
>>>>> sensitive area if you do enough video calling and have something to see.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The camera feels like you can snap it off pretty easily anyways.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Adam
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of
>>>>> *Lelio Fulgenzi
>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 17, 2019 3:44 PM
>>>>> *To:* Hunter Fuller 
>>>>> *Cc:* Norton, Mike ; voyp list, cisco-voip (
>>>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) 
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] what's the NC model of phones?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In actuality, the 8845 includes: Integrated Bluetooth + Intelligent
>>>>> Proximity over what an 8841 has.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From the brochure:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/products/collateral/collaboration-endpoints/unified-ip-phone-7940g/prod_brochure0900aecd800f6d4a.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably more.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>>>>>
>>>>> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>>>>>
>>>>> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON
>>>>> | N1G 2W1
>>>>>
>>>>> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 | le...@uoguelph.ca
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* Hunter Fuller 
>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 17, 2019 3:35 PM
>>>>> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi 
>>>>> *Cc:* Charles Goldsmith ; Norton, Mike <
>>>>> mikenor...@pwsd76.ab.ca>; voyp list, cisco-voip (
>>>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) 
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] what's the NC model of phones?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But isn't an 8845 without a camera basically an 8841? ... The use case
>>>>> for such a device would have to

Re: [cisco-voip] what's the NC model of phones?

2019-09-17 Thread Anthony Holloway
I think everyone is just guessing what NC stands for.  I'd like to think
it's because it's Not Complete, and you have to build it yourself like a
piece of Ikea furniture.

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 2:59 PM James Buchanan 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> With much searching, this site:
> https://itprice.com/cisco/cp-8845-nc-k9=.html indicates that the "NC"
> phone is "Non-China" Country of Origin. I don't know that for sure, but I
> thought it was an interesting, undocumented interpretation. At least it
> would explain why it's more expensive.
>
> Thanks,
>
> James
>
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 8:47 PM Pawlowski, Adam  wrote:
>
>> Slightly bigger screen, and no USB port.
>>
>>
>>
>> I still don’t know why you’d want that unless you need Bluetooth are
>> still security minded (?), or you use the wall mount kit and want the same
>> appearance everywhere?
>>
>>
>>
>> Also I assume it can receive video so it can be used in a lobby or
>> sensitive area if you do enough video calling and have something to see.
>>
>>
>>
>> The camera feels like you can snap it off pretty easily anyways.
>>
>>
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Lelio
>> Fulgenzi
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 17, 2019 3:44 PM
>> *To:* Hunter Fuller 
>> *Cc:* Norton, Mike ; voyp list, cisco-voip (
>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) 
>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] what's the NC model of phones?
>>
>>
>>
>> In actuality, the 8845 includes: Integrated Bluetooth + Intelligent
>> Proximity over what an 8841 has.
>>
>>
>>
>> From the brochure:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/products/collateral/collaboration-endpoints/unified-ip-phone-7940g/prod_brochure0900aecd800f6d4a.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> Probably more.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>>
>> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>>
>> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
>> N1G 2W1
>>
>> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 | le...@uoguelph.ca
>>
>>
>>
>> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Hunter Fuller 
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 17, 2019 3:35 PM
>> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi 
>> *Cc:* Charles Goldsmith ; Norton, Mike <
>> mikenor...@pwsd76.ab.ca>; voyp list, cisco-voip (
>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) 
>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] what's the NC model of phones?
>>
>>
>>
>> But isn't an 8845 without a camera basically an 8841? ... The use case
>> for such a device would have to be unbelievably slim, surely...
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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 Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 2:30 PM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
>>
>> Hmmm, no camera would make sense.
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>>
>> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>>
>> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
>> N1G 2W1
>>
>> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 | le...@uoguelph.ca
>>
>>
>>
>> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Charles Goldsmith 
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 17, 2019 3:14 PM
>> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi 
>> *Cc:* Norton, Mike ; voyp list, cisco-voip (
>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) 
>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] what's the NC model of phones?
>>
>>
>>
>> More and more odd, when I searched for that part number, I couldn't find
>> it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Could it be a No Camera option, since it seems to only be coming up on
>> phones that normally have a camera?
>>
>>
>>
>> The 8865 has a -nc but the 8851 does not
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 2:05 PM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
>>
>> I see it in ccw. The description is a little different. IP phone vs UC
>> Phone.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>>
>> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>>
>> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
>> N1G 2W1
>>
>> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 | le...@uoguelph.ca
>>
>>
>>
>> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of 
>> *Charles
>> Goldsmith
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 17, 2019 2:57 PM
>> *To:* Norton, Mike 
>> *Cc:* voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) <
>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] what's the NC model of phones?
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, I was way off...
>>
>>
>>
>> I can't find that part number in CCW at all, and I was thinking of the NR
>> version, which is no radio anyway.
>>
>>
>>
>> Lelio, where did you see CP-8845-NC-K9?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 1:34 PM Norton, Mike 
>> wrote:
>>

Re: [cisco-voip] what's the NC model of phones?

2019-09-17 Thread Anthony Holloway
The heck?  End customers have access to CCW?  I thought that was a partner
tool.  Huh.  The more you know.

While you're in there, just buy one and see what happens.  And while you
have the credit card out, by a silver bezel for the 8800 (CP-8800-S-BEZEL=)
too, so I can what that looks like.  There are no images of it online.

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 2:06 PM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:

> I see it in ccw. The description is a little different. IP phone vs UC
> Phone.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Charles
> Goldsmith
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 17, 2019 2:57 PM
> *To:* Norton, Mike 
> *Cc:* voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) <
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] what's the NC model of phones?
>
>
>
> Well, I was way off...
>
>
>
> I can't find that part number in CCW at all, and I was thinking of the NR
> version, which is no radio anyway.
>
>
>
> Lelio, where did you see CP-8845-NC-K9?
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 1:34 PM Norton, Mike 
> wrote:
>
> But I thought K9 means "strong crypto"? So NC-K9 is "no crypto *and*
> strong crypto"
>
> -mn
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of
> Charles Goldsmith
> Sent: September 13, 2019 3:30 PM
> To: Myron Young 
> Cc: voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) <
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] what's the NC model of phones?
>
> Export purposes
>
> > On Sep 13, 2019, at 4:24 PM, Myron Young 
> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe this is a silly question, but why would anyone want a no crypto
> phone?
> >
> >> On Sep 13, 2019, at 4:09 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
> >>
> >> AH. Gotcha.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A. | Senior Analyst Computing and Communications
> >> Services | University of Guelph Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition
> >> Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON | N1G 2W1
> >> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 | le...@uoguelph.ca
> >>
> >> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Charles Goldsmith 
> >> Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 4:05 PM
> >> To: Lelio Fulgenzi 
> >> Cc: voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net)
> >> 
> >> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] what's the NC model of phones?
> >>
> >> No crypto
> >>
> >>> On Sep 13, 2019, at 3:02 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Anyone know what the NC model of phones are?
> >>>
> >>> There's the CP-8845-K9=, but also the CP-8845-NC-K9=. And the NC
> version is more expensive with a longer lead time.
> >>>
> >>> Can't find any details on the datasheet or any google search.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ---
> >>> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A. | Senior Analyst Computing and Communications
> >>> Services | University of Guelph Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition
> >>> Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON | N1G 2W1
> >>> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 |
> >>> le...@uoguelph.ca
> >>>
> >>> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on
> >>> Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
> >>>
> >>> [University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>> ___
> >>> cisco-voip mailing list
> >>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> >> ___
> >> cisco-voip mailing list
> >> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


Re: [cisco-voip] Jabber with CCX , over MRA

2019-09-17 Thread Anthony Holloway
As in, load FIPPA in a custom tab?  I haven't tried this, but in theory it
should not work, because the FIPPA source code is formatted specifically
for IP Phones to understand and not your average web browser.

You could however just roll your own FIPPA client for a custom tab in
jabber.  Or just purchase 2ring Compact Agent.

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 12:36 PM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:

>
>
> I’m eager to find out if Jabber supports the phone agent….
>
>
>
> ---
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Anthony
> Holloway
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 17, 2019 1:32 PM
> *To:* Pawlowski, Adam 
> *Cc:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Jabber with CCX , over MRA
>
>
>
> The UCCX 12.x SRND is telling us that an end point (like CSF or 8851)
> registered via MRA is supported as an Agent device.
>
>
>
> It also tells us that the Agent's access to Finesse for sign-in/state
> changes is only available over VPN or direct internet access to Finesse.
>
>
>
> However, if VPN is all you got, then Jabber over MRA is not necessary.
> Therefore, expose your Finesse to the internet (port usage guide) and have
> your cake and eat it too.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 11:57 AM Pawlowski, Adam 
> wrote:
>
> Good afternoon all,
>
>
>
> Just trying to get my notes together on the subject of using Jabber as an
> agent softphone, with UCCX (12) , over MRA. Recently saw some commentary
> that it is not supported, but, it’s not explicitly called out that I can
> tell.
>
>
>
> The CCX SRND mentions that Expressway is supported “as an endpoint”,
> Jabber can be used, but doesn’t call any specific limitation to the two.
> This guide does say that Multiline is not supported which seemed to be new.
>
>
>
> As far as I can tell it is working just fine to use with Finesse over MRA,
> the only thing I haven’t done yet is looked at traffic to see if it/CTI
> works because it can reach the UCM directly.
>
>
>
> Anyone have any experience with trying to implement that, or, if they know
> for sure it is problematic or … not ?
>
>
>
> Adam
>
> ___
> 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] Jabber with CCX , over MRA

2019-09-17 Thread Anthony Holloway
The UCCX 12.x SRND is telling us that an end point (like CSF or 8851)
registered via MRA is supported as an Agent device.

It also tells us that the Agent's access to Finesse for sign-in/state
changes is only available over VPN or direct internet access to Finesse.

However, if VPN is all you got, then Jabber over MRA is not necessary.
Therefore, expose your Finesse to the internet (port usage guide) and have
your cake and eat it too.

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 11:57 AM Pawlowski, Adam  wrote:

> Good afternoon all,
>
>
>
> Just trying to get my notes together on the subject of using Jabber as an
> agent softphone, with UCCX (12) , over MRA. Recently saw some commentary
> that it is not supported, but, it’s not explicitly called out that I can
> tell.
>
>
>
> The CCX SRND mentions that Expressway is supported “as an endpoint”,
> Jabber can be used, but doesn’t call any specific limitation to the two.
> This guide does say that Multiline is not supported which seemed to be new.
>
>
>
> As far as I can tell it is working just fine to use with Finesse over MRA,
> the only thing I haven’t done yet is looked at traffic to see if it/CTI
> works because it can reach the UCM directly.
>
>
>
> Anyone have any experience with trying to implement that, or, if they know
> for sure it is problematic or … not ?
>
>
>
> Adam
> ___
> 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] Bulk Admin and Jabber

2019-09-16 Thread Anthony Holloway
What programming language did you write it in, and is the interface GUI or
CLI based?

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 1:04 PM Pawlowski, Adam  wrote:

> Catching up on this one since this list stopped sending me daily digests
> but more like whenever it feels like it digests
>
>
>
> We use the Quick User/Phone Add here and I put that into the procedures
> for the technicians since it can enforce some level of consistency. It’s
> not perfect by any means but for Jabber at least there is usually not too
> much farting around that needs to be done after the client is setup.
>
>
>
> Two sore points for me on it are:
>
>
>
> 1)  It does not fill in the ASCII Display Name field when it adds
> line appearances. I have no idea why, but CTI applications like CER still
> use this so I have to go open each one and click on it to avoid dispatch
> getting calls from “_”.
>
> 2)  Product specific fields are still not available here. On desk
> sets that’s the wireless hookswitch control. On Jabber, that’s the Cisco
> Support Field. Unless something has changed recently, the BOT/TAB/TCT
> devices’ flavor of Cisco Support Field is NOT the same one as in the common
> phone profile.
>
> I haven’t experimented to see if this works now, but it did not when we
> set all this up for Jabber. Our base jabber-config turns off everything but
> IM so anyone can just pop  open the client, then we change profile on the
> client to turn on the features or for hunt/pickup etc. I still have to
> touch this by hand for BOT, TAB, and TCT.
>
>
>
> It is “quick” and it works for 98% of new additions, it’s useless for
> moving resources between people as it re-provisions everything, and when
> you’re building procedures for people so they can avoid hand made changes,
> it doesn’t quite get us there.
>
>
>
> That being said I wrote a script to use AXL to bulk insert clients. I read
> a CSV with a userID, the client type, and the profile. I verify the user ID
> is in the system, insert the device, and then stack it on the association
> list. It really wasn’t that hard and comes a … well a bulk import tool I
> can hand off to the team. You can write product-specific configurations
> back with AXL, you just want to look at an example of how it is mashed
> together, and make sure you don’t break it. IIRC it’s a block of XML that
> comes out of the database, and I think this is one of those fields that
> when you set it back through AXL it gets written back exactly as you send
> it, so it is easy to clear settings.
>
>
>
> Best of luck
>
>
>
> Adam Pawlowski
>
> SUNYAB
> ___
> 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] Update to my log processor

2019-09-15 Thread Anthony Holloway
Seems cool!  I'd actually like to understand how it works before I use it.
Do you have a write-up?

On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 11:50 AM Kent Roberts  wrote:

> I should add to this…. Once just the needed log files are found, it sure
> makes using Translatorx even easier.
>
> On Sep 13, 2019, at 10:36 PM, Kent Roberts  wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I don’t know if anyone Is using the RTMT processor I wrote, but if you
> are, here is an update:
>
> http://www.projecttesn.org/toys
>
>
> A recap….
>
> Download RTMT (Callmanager, or Communications Manager) logs.
> Run this program.
> Select the logs folder.
> Then pick the phone number/sip address you are interested in and hit start.
> The program will look at all the RTMT logs,  find call id’s  (This takes a
> bit) and put only the files related to that call in the output folder.
>
>
> This is not a big deal if you have a few phones, but if you have 20-30k
> phones,  you like I know that the log files are huge and any help narrowing
> the files down to review is really nice.
>
>
> Let me know if you find bugs.
>
> I started this project in PHP, but wow was that slow, and I am trying to
> learn C#.  So I apologize if the interface isn’t the best, but some day I
> hope it will be!
>
> Kent
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Bulk Admin and Jabber

2019-09-13 Thread Anthony Holloway
I'd like to upvote this option.

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 10:02 AM Brian Meade  wrote:

> Have you tried using the Quick/User Phone Add?  That works pretty well.
> Just assign device/line templates to user profiles and adding a
> CSF/TCT/RDP/Deskphone/TAB/BOT device for a user takes all of a minute at
> most.
>
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 10:42 AM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
>
>> I guess it’s a combo of built-in tools and tools people are familiar
>> with.
>>
>>
>>
>> I like the idea, but again, adding extra steps like that might not work.
>> Now, that being said, I wonder if I can modify the order in which the
>> columns are presented to the import tool? If they allow headers, that
>> should be ok, right?
>>
>>
>>
>> I might be stuck with looking for green columns for the first round. ☹
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>>
>> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>>
>> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
>> N1G 2W1
>>
>> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 | le...@uoguelph.ca
>>
>>
>>
>> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Anthony Holloway 
>> *Sent:* Friday, September 13, 2019 10:31 AM
>> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi 
>> *Cc:* cisco-voip voyp list 
>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Bulk Admin and Jabber
>>
>>
>>
>> "...I need to use the built-in tools..."
>>
>>
>>
>> So, Excel + BAT is built-in, and Python + AXL is not?
>>
>>
>>
>> I kid, I kid.  I get that there's a common familiarity with Excel and not
>> one with Python.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have a recommendation when working with BAT import files in Excel.
>> Insert a few input columns to the left of the actual data, and then drive
>> your entire spreadsheet with formulas.  This will save you from having to
>> constantly scroll left and right look for cells you need to fill in.  You
>> will have to exclude them when you export/save as csv.  However, keeping
>> the input columns together on the left should make this very easy.  You can
>> duplicate the sheet and delete them, you can have two different files: XLSX
>> and CSV, you can copy and paste into Notepad++ and CTRL+H replace tabs (\t)
>> with commas (,).  There's a few options there.  Anyway, I find it much
>> nicer to input the data this way.  I hope it helps you too.
>>
>>
>>
>> Do this:
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: image.png]
>>
>>
>>
>> Not this:
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: image.png]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 7:24 PM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> We really need to start to minimize the amount of custom scripts /
>> programming that we use, not increase it.
>>
>>
>>
>> It’s a bit of a long story.
>>
>>
>>
>> So I need to use the built-in tools.
>>
>>
>>
>> :(
>>
>>
>>
>> We might just stick with super copy if bulk admin doesn’t work out.
>>
>>
>>
>> Lelio
>>
>> *-sent from mobile device-*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>>
>> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>>
>> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
>> N1G 2W1
>>
>> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 <519-824-4120;56354> | le...@uoguelph.ca
>>
>>
>>
>> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 12, 2019, at 7:48 PM, Anthony Holloway <
>> avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Why not roll your own build tool in Python?  You can ask questions here,
>> as lots of us have Python and AXL experience, and then more people get to
>> benefit from the collaboration.
>>
>>
>>
>> Just think how cool it would be to build your very own Jarvis:
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 5:22 PM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> It’s been a while since I’ve used Bulk Admin Tool.
>>
>>
>>
>> Wondering how it might help with our Jabber deployment.
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m thinking, since our requests will co

Re: [cisco-voip] Bulk Admin and Jabber

2019-09-13 Thread Anthony Holloway
"... when we know the device name for the softphones needs to be the userID"

Just to be clear, it does not.  That was an old CUPC requirement, and the
new requirements are as follows:

CSF = could be whatever you want, e.g., banana (unless you have QM call
recording, then it needs to be all caps CSFSOMETHING for QM)
TCT = must be all caps TCTSOMETHING
BOT =  must be all caps BOTSOMETHING
TAB = must be all caps TABSOMETHING

None of them however, need the User ID in the name.  Could be TCTBANANA for
example.

Maybe that's not what you meant.  Maybe you meant, for your company's
standard build, but I thought I'd address that, since other people might
have read that it needed to be that way.

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 10:25 AM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:

> This looks like an interesting option. I’ll have to see how much effort it
> takes to get the templates set up in order for us to use this.
>
>
>
> I didn’t like the fact that it’s asking me to fill in the device name,
> when we know the device name for the softphones needs to be the userID. So
> this is a step that could lead to errors and extra effort.
>
>
>
> I know this sounds like _*I*_ don’t want to do this stuff, but when
> you’re preparing instructions for a group of people with varying skill
> sets, the less work required the better.
>
>
>
> At least we have some options.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
>
>
> *From:* Brian Meade 
> *Sent:* Friday, September 13, 2019 11:02 AM
> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi 
> *Cc:* Anthony Holloway ; cisco-voip voyp
> list 
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Bulk Admin and Jabber
>
>
>
> Have you tried using the Quick/User Phone Add?  That works pretty well.
> Just assign device/line templates to user profiles and adding a
> CSF/TCT/RDP/Deskphone/TAB/BOT device for a user takes all of a minute at
> most.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 10:42 AM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
>
> I guess it’s a combo of built-in tools and tools people are familiar with.
>
>
>
> I like the idea, but again, adding extra steps like that might not work.
> Now, that being said, I wonder if I can modify the order in which the
> columns are presented to the import tool? If they allow headers, that
> should be ok, right?
>
>
>
> I might be stuck with looking for green columns for the first round. ☹
>
>
>
> ---
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
>
>
> *From:* Anthony Holloway 
> *Sent:* Friday, September 13, 2019 10:31 AM
> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi 
> *Cc:* cisco-voip voyp list 
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Bulk Admin and Jabber
>
>
>
> "...I need to use the built-in tools..."
>
>
>
> So, Excel + BAT is built-in, and Python + AXL is not?
>
>
>
> I kid, I kid.  I get that there's a common familiarity with Excel and not
> one with Python.
>
>
>
> I have a recommendation when working with BAT import files in Excel.
> Insert a few input columns to the left of the actual data, and then drive
> your entire spreadsheet with formulas.  This will save you from having to
> constantly scroll left and right look for cells you need to fill in.  You
> will have to exclude them when you export/save as csv.  However, keeping
> the input columns together on the left should make this very easy.  You can
> duplicate the sheet and delete them, you can have two different files: XLSX
> and CSV, you can copy and paste into Notepad++ and CTRL+H replace tabs (\t)
> with commas (,).  There's a few options there.  Anyway, I find it much
> nicer to input the data this way.  I hope it helps you too.
>
>
>
> Do this:
>
>
>
> [image: image.png]
>
>
>
> Not this:
>
>
>
> [image: image.png]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 7:24 PM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
>
>
>
> We really need to start to minimize the amount of custom scripts /
> programming that we use, not increase i

Re: [cisco-voip] Bulk Admin and Jabber

2019-09-13 Thread Anthony Holloway
Nope!  I actually just did this a week ago with Hunt Pilots, Hunt Lists and
Line Groups.  The import failed when I moved the columns around, and I had
to revert the order.  It's safe to say that the column order matters in
some instances.  Feel free to play with it though.

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 9:42 AM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:

> I guess it’s a combo of built-in tools and tools people are familiar with.
>
>
>
> I like the idea, but again, adding extra steps like that might not work.
> Now, that being said, I wonder if I can modify the order in which the
> columns are presented to the import tool? If they allow headers, that
> should be ok, right?
>
>
>
> I might be stuck with looking for green columns for the first round. ☹
>
>
>
> ---
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
>
>
> *From:* Anthony Holloway 
> *Sent:* Friday, September 13, 2019 10:31 AM
> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi 
> *Cc:* cisco-voip voyp list 
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Bulk Admin and Jabber
>
>
>
> "...I need to use the built-in tools..."
>
>
>
> So, Excel + BAT is built-in, and Python + AXL is not?
>
>
>
> I kid, I kid.  I get that there's a common familiarity with Excel and not
> one with Python.
>
>
>
> I have a recommendation when working with BAT import files in Excel.
> Insert a few input columns to the left of the actual data, and then drive
> your entire spreadsheet with formulas.  This will save you from having to
> constantly scroll left and right look for cells you need to fill in.  You
> will have to exclude them when you export/save as csv.  However, keeping
> the input columns together on the left should make this very easy.  You can
> duplicate the sheet and delete them, you can have two different files: XLSX
> and CSV, you can copy and paste into Notepad++ and CTRL+H replace tabs (\t)
> with commas (,).  There's a few options there.  Anyway, I find it much
> nicer to input the data this way.  I hope it helps you too.
>
>
>
> Do this:
>
>
>
> [image: image.png]
>
>
>
> Not this:
>
>
>
> [image: image.png]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 7:24 PM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
>
>
>
> We really need to start to minimize the amount of custom scripts /
> programming that we use, not increase it.
>
>
>
> It’s a bit of a long story.
>
>
>
> So I need to use the built-in tools.
>
>
>
> :(
>
>
>
> We might just stick with super copy if bulk admin doesn’t work out.
>
>
>
> Lelio
>
> *-sent from mobile device-*
>
>
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 <519-824-4120;56354> | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 12, 2019, at 7:48 PM, Anthony Holloway <
> avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Why not roll your own build tool in Python?  You can ask questions here,
> as lots of us have Python and AXL experience, and then more people get to
> benefit from the collaboration.
>
>
>
> Just think how cool it would be to build your very own Jarvis:
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 5:22 PM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
>
>
>
> It’s been a while since I’ve used Bulk Admin Tool.
>
>
>
> Wondering how it might help with our Jabber deployment.
>
>
>
> I’m thinking, since our requests will come in one at a time, the best
> approach would be to create a BAT file that has a line for each device
> type. We’ve decided to load all types so users can switch devices out/in as
> they wish.
>
>
>
> Can you bulk load _without_ using a template?
>
>
>
> What have others done with respect to Jabber bulk loads?
>
>
>
> Lelio
>
> *-sent from mobile device-*
>
>
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 <519-824-4120;56354> | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Bulk Admin and Jabber

2019-09-13 Thread Anthony Holloway
CUCM does not fail because of blank cells, causing lots of consecutive
commas.  That's normal.  In fact, it's even discussed/shown in the example
files:

[image: image.png]

[image: image.png]

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 9:28 AM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:

> Ok. So I tested exporting CSF and TCT phones. As I suspected, they’re
> different. There’s a whole bunch of extra columns for the available DNs for
> CSF.
>
>
>
> If I want to import both CSF and TCT phones at the same time, I wonder
> what the strategy is here?
>
>
>
> I’m fine with just leaving those columns blank, but will CUCM barf at
> seeing those extra commas for the TCT phones? There’s a validation process
> I believe – could try that too.
>
>
>
> Lelio
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
>
>
> *From:* Evgeny Izetov 
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 12, 2019 10:33 PM
> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi 
> *Cc:* Anthony Holloway ; cisco-voip voyp
> list 
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Bulk Admin and Jabber
>
>
>
> You can use Import/Export configuration with all details. No need for
> template and can import different types of devices at the same time.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 8:24 PM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
>
>
>
> We really need to start to minimize the amount of custom scripts /
> programming that we use, not increase it.
>
>
>
> It’s a bit of a long story.
>
>
>
> So I need to use the built-in tools.
>
>
>
> :(
>
>
>
> We might just stick with super copy if bulk admin doesn’t work out.
>
>
>
> Lelio
>
> *-sent from mobile device-*
>
>
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 <519-824-4120;56354> | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 12, 2019, at 7:48 PM, Anthony Holloway <
> avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Why not roll your own build tool in Python?  You can ask questions here,
> as lots of us have Python and AXL experience, and then more people get to
> benefit from the collaboration.
>
>
>
> Just think how cool it would be to build your very own Jarvis:
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 5:22 PM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
>
>
>
> It’s been a while since I’ve used Bulk Admin Tool.
>
>
>
> Wondering how it might help with our Jabber deployment.
>
>
>
> I’m thinking, since our requests will come in one at a time, the best
> approach would be to create a BAT file that has a line for each device
> type. We’ve decided to load all types so users can switch devices out/in as
> they wish.
>
>
>
> Can you bulk load _without_ using a template?
>
>
>
> What have others done with respect to Jabber bulk loads?
>
>
>
> Lelio
>
> *-sent from mobile device-*
>
>
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 <519-824-4120;56354> | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


Re: [cisco-voip] Bulk Admin and Jabber

2019-09-13 Thread Anthony Holloway
"...I need to use the built-in tools..."

So, Excel + BAT is built-in, and Python + AXL is not?

I kid, I kid.  I get that there's a common familiarity with Excel and not
one with Python.

I have a recommendation when working with BAT import files in Excel.
Insert a few input columns to the left of the actual data, and then drive
your entire spreadsheet with formulas.  This will save you from having to
constantly scroll left and right look for cells you need to fill in.  You
will have to exclude them when you export/save as csv.  However, keeping
the input columns together on the left should make this very easy.  You can
duplicate the sheet and delete them, you can have two different files: XLSX
and CSV, you can copy and paste into Notepad++ and CTRL+H replace tabs (\t)
with commas (,).  There's a few options there.  Anyway, I find it much
nicer to input the data this way.  I hope it helps you too.

Do this:

[image: image.png]

Not this:

[image: image.png]



On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 7:24 PM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:

>
> We really need to start to minimize the amount of custom scripts /
> programming that we use, not increase it.
>
> It’s a bit of a long story.
>
> So I need to use the built-in tools.
>
> :(
>
> We might just stick with super copy if bulk admin doesn’t work out.
>
> Lelio
>
> *-sent from mobile device-*
>
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 <519-824-4120;56354> | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
> On Sep 12, 2019, at 7:48 PM, Anthony Holloway <
> avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Why not roll your own build tool in Python?  You can ask questions here,
> as lots of us have Python and AXL experience, and then more people get to
> benefit from the collaboration.
>
> Just think how cool it would be to build your very own Jarvis:
>
> 
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 5:22 PM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
>
>>
>> It’s been a while since I’ve used Bulk Admin Tool.
>>
>> Wondering how it might help with our Jabber deployment.
>>
>> I’m thinking, since our requests will come in one at a time, the best
>> approach would be to create a BAT file that has a line for each device
>> type. We’ve decided to load all types so users can switch devices out/in as
>> they wish.
>>
>> Can you bulk load _without_ using a template?
>>
>> What have others done with respect to Jabber bulk loads?
>>
>> Lelio
>>
>> *-sent from mobile device-*
>>
>>
>> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>>
>> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>>
>> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
>> N1G 2W1
>>
>> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 <519-824-4120;56354> | le...@uoguelph.ca
>>
>>
>>
>> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>> ___
>> 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] Bulk Admin and Jabber

2019-09-12 Thread Anthony Holloway
Why not roll your own build tool in Python?  You can ask questions here, as
lots of us have Python and AXL experience, and then more people get to
benefit from the collaboration.

Just think how cool it would be to build your very own Jarvis:

[image: image.png]

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 5:22 PM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:

>
> It’s been a while since I’ve used Bulk Admin Tool.
>
> Wondering how it might help with our Jabber deployment.
>
> I’m thinking, since our requests will come in one at a time, the best
> approach would be to create a BAT file that has a line for each device
> type. We’ve decided to load all types so users can switch devices out/in as
> they wish.
>
> Can you bulk load _without_ using a template?
>
> What have others done with respect to Jabber bulk loads?
>
> Lelio
>
> *-sent from mobile device-*
>
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 <519-824-4120;56354> | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
> ___
> 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] Where does CUCM/informix store the recordingMediaSource and recordingFlag for phones/lines?

2019-09-11 Thread Anthony Holloway
"... You could update based on criteria after joining..."

Keep in mind that you cannot use UPDATE with JOIN on CUCM, due to the level
of DB CUCM uses from Informix.  Just a limitation we have to deal with, and
an unfortunate one.  I'm not sure if that's exactly what you were saying or
getting at, but wanted to point that out nonetheless, because it may not be
well known.

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:26 AM Tucci, Ben via cisco-voip <
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net> wrote:

> That should be tkpreferredmediasource on the devicenumplanmap; which is
> where the line info is stored for a given device. You could update based on
> criteria after joining the device on fkdevice or the dnorpattern fron
> numplan (fknumplan.)
>
>
> sql select * from typepreferredmediasource
> enum name  moniker
>  = ==
> 1Gateway Preferred PREFERRED_MEDIA_SOURCE_GATEWAY
> 2Phone Preferred   PREFERRED_MEDIA_SOURCE_PHONE
>
> sql select FIRST 1 pkid, fkdevice, tkpreferredmediasource from
> devicenumplanmap
> pkid fkdevice
> tkpreferredmediasource
>  
> ==
> 00045024-647d-453d-a281-e3ccc5556fc7 4bb930c6-0cd3-cdbd-8080-39e624bf8028 1
>
>
>
> --
> *From:* cisco-voip  on behalf of Nick
> Barnett 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 11, 2019 8:12 AM
> *To:* Charles Goldsmith 
> *Cc:* voip puck 
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Where does CUCM/informix store the
> recordingMediaSource and recordingFlag for phones/lines?
>
> Valid question. We hit bug CSCvr11455
> a
> week ago and it crippled our company for a few days because it broke A
> Cisco DB and affected Extension Mobility. We are in an "enhanced" change
> freeze window until Cisco can get us a patch. Just trying to keep this
> other project rolling while we're stuck on the support side.  The last time
> I exported all phones it took almost a full day and I can't risk that right
> now. This option would definitely work in most cases.
>
> Not to mention, I need to automate some stuff for this switchover, so I'd
> like to understand what I'm dealing with.
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019, at 9:59 AM, Charles Goldsmith wrote:
>
> I don't have an answer to your question, but why not just export all
> phones and filter that column in excel?
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 9:57 AM Nick Barnett  wrote:
>
>
> We're changing our recording platform and have to move from BiB Phone
> Preferred to Gateway Preferred. I know we have many phones already
> (erroneously) set to gateway preferred. The way we are set up, this isn't
> causing an issue but will in the future. I need to find out how many phones
> we have set this way. I can't find a way to search on this setting, so I
> turned to SQL and AXL.
>
>
> When working with the AXL API, I can use a getPhone call and pull down the
> appropriate config. I can also use an updatePhone call to change the
> recording media source from "Phone Preferred" to "Gateway Preferred" and
> recordingFlag to and from "Automatic Call Recording Enabled" and "Selective
> Call Recording Enabled." When I look at the numplan, device and
> devicenumplanmap, I don't see where the recording media source or
> recordingFlag are stored.
>
>
> I've tried pulling down the rows of the previously mentioned tables via a
> SQL select, then changing the settings in CUCM and pulling the same tables
> down to see if anything changed. Nothing changes so I think it has to be
> storing somewhere else or I'm doing something wrong.
>
>
> Does anyone have either a SQL query I can look at that shows how this is
> stored, or a better understanding of how this parts works? Maybe there is a
> way to do this in CUCM that I'm unaware of?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Nick
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> 
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
> --
> The information contained in this message may be privileged, confidential
> and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the
> intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this
> message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
> dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
> 

Re: [cisco-voip] Enjoy a No-Compromise User Experience with Cisco Jabber 12.7 - Cisco Blog

2019-09-11 Thread Anthony Holloway
Funny, I was just in a situation this week where the Desk Phone control of
the secondary line issue came up.  Looks like 12.7 solves this now.

However, it still doesn't look like it solves the problem of Jabber VDI and
Desk Phone Video though, which remains a Jabber Windows only feature.  It's
a shame too really, because back when it was called VMXE, this was
supported.

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 6:17 AM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:

> 12.7 has dropped.
>
>
> https://blogs.cisco.com/collaboration/enjoy-a-no-compromise-user-experience-with-cisco-jabber-12-7
>
>
> *-sent from mobile device-*
>
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 <519-824-4120;56354> | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
> ___
> 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] No Park on Jabber for Windows?

2019-09-10 Thread Anthony Holloway
This does seem backwards.  I would think features show up in J4W first,
then other platforms second (as long as they are not mobile specific - like
cellular handoff)

Anyway, vote up the ideas over here, and maybe we'll eventually see it
implemented:

https://community.cisco.com/t5/collaboration-ccp-product/add-park-capability-to-jabber/idi-p/3607957


https://community.cisco.com/t5/collaboration-ccp-product/call-park-with-monitoring-for-jabber-for-windows-mac/idi-p/3608805


On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 12:43 PM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:

>
> OK – I thought I was missing something. Then I found:
>
> Support for call-park for Jabber Windows
>
> https://bst.cloudapps.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCub29983/?rfs=iqvred
>
>
> the parameters reference says Park is only for mobile clients… how is this
> possible!?
>
> Omg. This is like forwarding secondary lines all over again. ☹
>
> Tag @ed @scott ‘cause they like seeing my forehead vein pop.
> ---
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A. | Senior Analyst
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram,
> Twitter and Facebook
>
> [University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


Re: [cisco-voip] Your Associated Webex Sites

2019-09-10 Thread Anthony Holloway
PSIRT contacted/raised.  I linked them to this thread.

On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 5:15 PM Brian Meade  wrote:

> Technically you can still be associated to multiple sites even with
> Control Hub such as having a Meeting Center and Event Center license.
>
> Most of it seems to be accounting for Site Administration use cases where
> your email address could exist across multiple organizations.
>
> This is an interesting thing along with how you found that each site you
> are Partner Admin for allows you to have a PMR on their site.  It's mainly
> just applicable to us Cisco partners.  I'd reach out to PSIRT about it and
> see what they think.
>
> I did test with Fiddler and that API request doesn't seem to be documented
> anywhere which is interesting.
>
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 1:21 PM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
>
>> I think this is because in old site admin days, which still exist, your
>> userID / password combo is (can be) stored with the site itself. So, in
>> reality, you can have multiple (different) passwords.
>>
>> *-sent from mobile device-*
>>
>>
>> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>>
>> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>>
>> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
>> N1G 2W1
>>
>> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 <519-824-4120;56354> | le...@uoguelph.ca
>>
>>
>>
>> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>>
>> On Sep 9, 2019, at 1:03 PM, Anthony Holloway <
>> avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I don't know Brian.  My work email is only associated to a single
>> password, not multiple.  Ask me for my password, and then show me my list
>> of sites.  Makes sense in my head.
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 9:59 AM Brian Meade  wrote:
>>
>>> This would be a big change most likely on the Webex side.  They can't
>>> authenticate until they know which site and manually entering site URL's is
>>> probably a no-go for end users.  A bit similar to Zoom's issue trying to
>>> focus more on faster join times/easier experience over security.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 10:01 AM Anthony Holloway <
>>> avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Exactly!  Ok, so now you are seeing what I am seeing.  Just imagine if
>>>> one were so inclined to use Fiddler to see what call the app was making to
>>>> the cloud, and then use that knowledge in a python script to automate the
>>>> scraping of this data.  Not that I did that.  Laughs in PSIRT.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 8:56 AM Brian Meade  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I just did some testing here.  I'm also seeing some Control Hub-only
>>>>> customers in my list.  I'm set as a partner admin only for those accounts.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 9:32 AM Matthew Loraditch <
>>>>> mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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* <443.541.1518>
>>>>>> w: *www.heliontechnologies.com* <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
>>>>>>  |  e: *mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com*
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [image: Helion Technologies] <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
>>>>>> [image: Facebook] <https://facebook.com/heliontech>
>>>>>>  <https://twitter.com/heliontech>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
>>>>>> *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 
>>

Re: [cisco-voip] Your Associated Webex Sites

2019-09-09 Thread Anthony Holloway
I don't know Brian.  My work email is only associated to a single password,
not multiple.  Ask me for my password, and then show me my list of sites.
Makes sense in my head.

On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 9:59 AM Brian Meade  wrote:

> This would be a big change most likely on the Webex side.  They can't
> authenticate until they know which site and manually entering site URL's is
> probably a no-go for end users.  A bit similar to Zoom's issue trying to
> focus more on faster join times/easier experience over security.
>
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 10:01 AM Anthony Holloway <
> avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Exactly!  Ok, so now you are seeing what I am seeing.  Just imagine if
>> one were so inclined to use Fiddler to see what call the app was making to
>> the cloud, and then use that knowledge in a python script to automate the
>> scraping of this data.  Not that I did that.  Laughs in PSIRT.
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 8:56 AM Brian Meade  wrote:
>>
>>> I just did some testing here.  I'm also seeing some Control Hub-only
>>> customers in my list.  I'm set as a partner admin only for those accounts.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 9:32 AM Matthew Loraditch <
>>> mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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* <443.541.1518>
>>>> w: *www.heliontechnologies.com* <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
>>>>  |  e: *mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com*
>>>> 
>>>> [image: Helion Technologies] <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
>>>> [image: Facebook] <https://facebook.com/heliontech>
>>>> [image: Twitter] <https://twitter.com/heliontech>
>>>> [image: LinkedIn]
>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
>>>> *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 <
>>>> 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* <443.541.1518>
>>>>
>>>> w: *www.heliontechnologies.com* <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
>>>>
>>>>  |
>>>>
>>>> e: *mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com*
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>> [image: Helion Technologies] <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
>>>>
>>>> [image: Facebook] <https://facebook.com/heliontech>
>>>>
>>>> [image: Twitter] <https://twitter.com/heliontech>
>>>>
>>>> [image: LinkedIn]
>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
>>>>
>>>> *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 Site

Re: [cisco-voip] Your Associated Webex Sites

2019-09-09 Thread Anthony Holloway
Exactly!  Ok, so now you are seeing what I am seeing.  Just imagine if one
were so inclined to use Fiddler to see what call the app was making to the
cloud, and then use that knowledge in a python script to automate the
scraping of this data.  Not that I did that.  Laughs in PSIRT.

On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 8:56 AM Brian Meade  wrote:

> I just did some testing here.  I'm also seeing some Control Hub-only
> customers in my list.  I'm set as a partner admin only for those accounts.
>
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 9:32 AM Matthew Loraditch <
> mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:
>
>> 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* <443.541.1518>
>> w: *www.heliontechnologies.com* <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>  |
>> e: *mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com*
>> 
>> [image: Helion Technologies] <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
>> [image: Facebook] <https://facebook.com/heliontech>
>> [image: Twitter] <https://twitter.com/heliontech>
>> [image: LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
>> *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 <
>> 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* <443.541.1518>
>>
>> w: *www.heliontechnologies.com* <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
>>
>>  |
>>
>> e: *mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com*
>> 
>>
>> [image: Helion Technologies] <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
>>
>> [image: Facebook] <https://facebook.com/heliontech>
>>
>> [image: Twitter] <https://twitter.com/heliontech>
>>
>> [image: LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
>>
>> *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  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  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m not quite sure I understand the question.
>>
>>
>>
>> Are

Re: [cisco-voip] Your Associated Webex Sites

2019-09-09 Thread Anthony Holloway
Well not exactly.  I can see all of my Control Hub/Common Identity sites
when I supply my email address to the App.

But yes, this is the the means by which I found out this problem exists,
and the catalyst for my question.  I didn't want to mention it right away,
just in case I was spreading malicious information about the internet.

On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 8:24 AM Brian Meade  wrote:

> 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 <
> 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* <443.541.1518>
>> w: *www.heliontechnologies.com* <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>  |
>> e: *mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com*
>> 
>> [image: Helion Technologies] <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
>> [image: Facebook] <https://facebook.com/heliontech>
>> [image: Twitter] <https://twitter.com/heliontech>
>> [image: LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
>> *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  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  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 <519-824-4120;56354> | le...@uoguelph.ca
>>
>>
>>
>> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 8, 2019, at 2:45 PM, Anthony Holloway

Re: [cisco-voip] Your Associated Webex Sites

2019-09-09 Thread Anthony Holloway
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 <
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* <443.541.1518>
> w: *www.heliontechnologies.com* <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>  |
> e: *mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com* 
> [image: Helion Technologies] <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
> [image: Facebook] <https://facebook.com/heliontech>
> [image: Twitter] <https://twitter.com/heliontech>
> [image: LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
> *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  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  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 <519-824-4120;56354> | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 8, 2019, at 2:45 PM, Anthony Holloway <
> 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
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


Re: [cisco-voip] Your Associated Webex Sites

2019-09-09 Thread Anthony Holloway
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  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  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 <519-824-4120;56354> | le...@uoguelph.ca
>>
>>
>>
>> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>>
>> On Sep 8, 2019, at 2:45 PM, Anthony Holloway <
>> 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
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>
>> ___
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


[cisco-voip] Your Associated Webex Sites

2019-09-08 Thread Anthony Holloway
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
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 11.5(1)SU6, Port 6972 and EC Certs

2019-09-04 Thread Anthony Holloway
I was originally testing in FireFox ESR 68 with this CUCM 11.5(1)SU6.

To take your suggestion, I used FireFox ESR 60 and IE 11 and it still
happens.

In my CUCM 11.5(1)SU5, where this doesn't happen,I am using FireFox ESR 60
and IE 11 as well.

So there's two major differences then, the CUCM version and where we get
our certificates from (different end customers).

On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 1:05 PM Ryan Ratliff (rratliff) 
wrote:

> Remember the cert presentation in a TLS setup happens after the server
> knows the client’s capabilities.
>
>
>
> Try with a browser or ssl client that doesn’t support EC and see if you
> get the RSA cert.
>
>
>
> Ryan Ratliff
>
> Manager, Cisco Cloud Collaboration TAC
>
> Standard Business Hours: 8:00AM-5:00PM EDT
> Email: rratl...@cisco.com
>
> Office: +1 919-476-2081
>
> Mobile: +1-919-225-0448
>
> Cisco U.S. Contact Numbers: +1-800-553-2447 or +1-408-526-7209
>
>
>
> *From: *Brian Meade 
> *Date: *Wednesday, September 4, 2019 at 1:59 PM
> *To: *Anthony Holloway 
> *Cc: *Tim Smith , Ryan Ratliff <
> rratl...@cisco.com>, cisco-voip list 
> *Subject: *Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 11.5(1)SU6, Port 6972 and EC Certs
>
>
>
> This was on an 11.5 cluster without that setting changed from default.
> I'm wondering if that setting doesn't potentially change it everywhere.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 12:18 PM Anthony Holloway <
> avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So Brian, you (or someone) has then changed the HTTPS Ciphers Enterprise
> Parameter to use EC certs then?  Because that's not the default setting.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 10:20 AM Brian Meade  wrote:
>
> Some customers of mine with Linux environments connect to the CCMAdmin
> pages with the EC certs.  It's definitely a good idea to get those signed.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 11:06 PM Tim Smith  wrote:
>
> Is it time to start getting our EC certs signed as well?
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *cisco-voip  on behalf of "
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" 
> *Reply to: *"Ryan Ratliff (rratliff)" 
> *Date: *Wednesday, 4 September 2019 at 1:02 pm
> *To: *Anthony Holloway , "
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" 
> *Subject: *Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 11.5(1)SU6, Port 6972 and EC Certs
>
>
>
> TCP/6972 is hosted by the TFTP service specifically for secure download of
> configuration files and firmware (HTTPS using the Callmanager-EC cert) by
> endpoints. It’s using EC because only endpoints that support strong
> encryption will use support HTTPS downloads via TFTP.
>
> TCP/6970 is for the same as HTTP
>
> TCP/6971 is for the same as HTTPS using the Tomcat certificate (for Jabber)
>
>
> None of these are intended to be used by your browser, though it works
> perfectly well for testing and troubleshooting.
>
>
>
> Ryan Ratliff
>
> Manager, Cisco Cloud Collaboration TAC
>
> Standard Business Hours: 8:00AM-5:00PM EDT
> Email: rratl...@cisco.com
>
> Office: +1 919-476-2081
>
> Mobile: +1-919-225-0448
>
> Cisco U.S. Contact Numbers: +1-800-553-2447 or +1-408-526-7209
>
>
>
> *From: *cisco-voip  on behalf of
> Anthony Holloway 
> *Date: *Tuesday, September 3, 2019 at 10:03 PM
> *To: *cisco-voip list 
> *Subject: *[cisco-voip] CUCM 11.5(1)SU6, Port 6972 and EC Certs
>
>
>
> So, I just ran into something interesting where someone else took care of
> the certs for a CUCM I now have access to, and while the main CCMAdmin
> pages load fine in my browser with a full chain of trust, the 6972 page(s)
> are being delivered as EC certs, which were not signed, and thus, I get a
> warning in my browser.
>
>
>
> Now, I have other CUCM deployments under my belt where the Tomcat RSA
> certs are signed and EC not, because the default setting for CUCM is to not
> use EC certs until you tell it to.  These deployments still present the RSA
> cert to me for 6972.
>
>
>
> The only difference is the SU6 part.
>
>
>
> I couldn't find anything in the release notes nor in the bug search, and
> so I'm wondering if any of you know what might be happening.
>
>
>
> I tried toggling the HTTP Ciphers from RSA only to All and back again, but
> that didn't work.
>
>
>
> I tried re-uploading the RSA cert chain, starting from root, and then back
> through the 2 intermediates (yes, three layers deep, it's a public CA
> chain).
>
>
>
> I've restarted Tomcat, I've deactivated/reactivate TFTP, I've rebooted the
> cluster, and I'm just at a loss.  It's not that big of a deal, it just
> bothers me that I don't know why it's doing this.
>
> ___
> 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] CUCM 11.5(1)SU6, Port 6972 and EC Certs

2019-09-04 Thread Anthony Holloway
So Brian, you (or someone) has then changed the HTTPS Ciphers Enterprise
Parameter to use EC certs then?  Because that's not the default setting.

On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 10:20 AM Brian Meade  wrote:

> Some customers of mine with Linux environments connect to the CCMAdmin
> pages with the EC certs.  It's definitely a good idea to get those signed.
>
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 11:06 PM Tim Smith  wrote:
>
>> Is it time to start getting our EC certs signed as well?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *cisco-voip  on behalf of "
>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" 
>> *Reply to: *"Ryan Ratliff (rratliff)" 
>> *Date: *Wednesday, 4 September 2019 at 1:02 pm
>> *To: *Anthony Holloway , "
>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" 
>> *Subject: *Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 11.5(1)SU6, Port 6972 and EC Certs
>>
>>
>>
>> TCP/6972 is hosted by the TFTP service specifically for secure download
>> of configuration files and firmware (HTTPS using the Callmanager-EC cert)
>> by endpoints. It’s using EC because only endpoints that support strong
>> encryption will use support HTTPS downloads via TFTP.
>>
>> TCP/6970 is for the same as HTTP
>>
>> TCP/6971 is for the same as HTTPS using the Tomcat certificate (for
>> Jabber)
>>
>>
>> None of these are intended to be used by your browser, though it works
>> perfectly well for testing and troubleshooting.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ryan Ratliff
>>
>> Manager, Cisco Cloud Collaboration TAC
>>
>> Standard Business Hours: 8:00AM-5:00PM EDT
>> Email: rratl...@cisco.com
>>
>> Office: +1 919-476-2081
>>
>> Mobile: +1-919-225-0448
>>
>> Cisco U.S. Contact Numbers: +1-800-553-2447 or +1-408-526-7209
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *cisco-voip  on behalf of
>> Anthony Holloway 
>> *Date: *Tuesday, September 3, 2019 at 10:03 PM
>> *To: *cisco-voip list 
>> *Subject: *[cisco-voip] CUCM 11.5(1)SU6, Port 6972 and EC Certs
>>
>>
>>
>> So, I just ran into something interesting where someone else took care of
>> the certs for a CUCM I now have access to, and while the main CCMAdmin
>> pages load fine in my browser with a full chain of trust, the 6972 page(s)
>> are being delivered as EC certs, which were not signed, and thus, I get a
>> warning in my browser.
>>
>>
>>
>> Now, I have other CUCM deployments under my belt where the Tomcat RSA
>> certs are signed and EC not, because the default setting for CUCM is to not
>> use EC certs until you tell it to.  These deployments still present the RSA
>> cert to me for 6972.
>>
>>
>>
>> The only difference is the SU6 part.
>>
>>
>>
>> I couldn't find anything in the release notes nor in the bug search, and
>> so I'm wondering if any of you know what might be happening.
>>
>>
>>
>> I tried toggling the HTTP Ciphers from RSA only to All and back again,
>> but that didn't work.
>>
>>
>>
>> I tried re-uploading the RSA cert chain, starting from root, and then
>> back through the 2 intermediates (yes, three layers deep, it's a public CA
>> chain).
>>
>>
>>
>> I've restarted Tomcat, I've deactivated/reactivate TFTP, I've rebooted
>> the cluster, and I'm just at a loss.  It's not that big of a deal, it just
>> bothers me that I don't know why it's doing this.
>> ___
>> 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] CUCM 11.5(1)SU6, Port 6972 and EC Certs

2019-09-04 Thread Anthony Holloway
Thanks Tim, but you may have missed it in my lengthy starter email, but I
already deactivated/re-activated TFTP.

On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 9:57 PM Tim Smith  wrote:

> Im on the road, but there was a similar bug for this. Can’t seem to find
> it.
>
> It’s TFTP based issue from memory.
>
> You had to de-activate and re-activate the TFTP services.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *cisco-voip  on behalf of
> Anthony Holloway 
> *Date: *Wednesday, 4 September 2019 at 12:03 pm
> *To: *"cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" 
> *Subject: *[cisco-voip] CUCM 11.5(1)SU6, Port 6972 and EC Certs
>
>
>
> So, I just ran into something interesting where someone else took care of
> the certs for a CUCM I now have access to, and while the main CCMAdmin
> pages load fine in my browser with a full chain of trust, the 6972 page(s)
> are being delivered as EC certs, which were not signed, and thus, I get a
> warning in my browser.
>
>
>
> Now, I have other CUCM deployments under my belt where the Tomcat RSA
> certs are signed and EC not, because the default setting for CUCM is to not
> use EC certs until you tell it to.  These deployments still present the RSA
> cert to me for 6972.
>
>
>
> The only difference is the SU6 part.
>
>
>
> I couldn't find anything in the release notes nor in the bug search, and
> so I'm wondering if any of you know what might be happening.
>
>
>
> I tried toggling the HTTP Ciphers from RSA only to All and back again, but
> that didn't work.
>
>
>
> I tried re-uploading the RSA cert chain, starting from root, and then back
> through the 2 intermediates (yes, three layers deep, it's a public CA
> chain).
>
>
>
> I've restarted Tomcat, I've deactivated/reactivate TFTP, I've rebooted the
> cluster, and I'm just at a loss.  It's not that big of a deal, it just
> bothers me that I don't know why it's doing this.
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 11.5(1)SU6, Port 6972 and EC Certs

2019-09-04 Thread Anthony Holloway
So Ryan, I just tried 6971, and I am getting an EC cert there too.

[image: image.png]

Also, I can confirm that Jabber is using 6972, as it shows up in the
Diagnostics (CTRL+Shift+D) window as such:

[image: image.png]

Thoughts on those updates?


On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 10:02 PM Ryan Ratliff (rratliff) 
wrote:

> TCP/6972 is hosted by the TFTP service specifically for secure download of
> configuration files and firmware (HTTPS using the Callmanager-EC cert) by
> endpoints. It’s using EC because only endpoints that support strong
> encryption will use support HTTPS downloads via TFTP.
>
> TCP/6970 is for the same as HTTP
>
> TCP/6971 is for the same as HTTPS using the Tomcat certificate (for Jabber)
>
>
> None of these are intended to be used by your browser, though it works
> perfectly well for testing and troubleshooting.
>
>
>
> Ryan Ratliff
>
> Manager, Cisco Cloud Collaboration TAC
>
> Standard Business Hours: 8:00AM-5:00PM EDT
> Email: rratl...@cisco.com
>
> Office: +1 919-476-2081
>
> Mobile: +1-919-225-0448
>
> Cisco U.S. Contact Numbers: +1-800-553-2447 or +1-408-526-7209
>
>
>
> *From: *cisco-voip  on behalf of
> Anthony Holloway 
> *Date: *Tuesday, September 3, 2019 at 10:03 PM
> *To: *cisco-voip list 
> *Subject: *[cisco-voip] CUCM 11.5(1)SU6, Port 6972 and EC Certs
>
>
>
> So, I just ran into something interesting where someone else took care of
> the certs for a CUCM I now have access to, and while the main CCMAdmin
> pages load fine in my browser with a full chain of trust, the 6972 page(s)
> are being delivered as EC certs, which were not signed, and thus, I get a
> warning in my browser.
>
>
>
> Now, I have other CUCM deployments under my belt where the Tomcat RSA
> certs are signed and EC not, because the default setting for CUCM is to not
> use EC certs until you tell it to.  These deployments still present the RSA
> cert to me for 6972.
>
>
>
> The only difference is the SU6 part.
>
>
>
> I couldn't find anything in the release notes nor in the bug search, and
> so I'm wondering if any of you know what might be happening.
>
>
>
> I tried toggling the HTTP Ciphers from RSA only to All and back again, but
> that didn't work.
>
>
>
> I tried re-uploading the RSA cert chain, starting from root, and then back
> through the 2 intermediates (yes, three layers deep, it's a public CA
> chain).
>
>
>
> I've restarted Tomcat, I've deactivated/reactivate TFTP, I've rebooted the
> cluster, and I'm just at a loss.  It's not that big of a deal, it just
> bothers me that I don't know why it's doing this.
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 11.5(1)SU6, Port 6972 and EC Certs

2019-09-04 Thread Anthony Holloway
Thanks Ryan.  When did this change exactly?  I have been using 6972 for
pulling jabber-config.xml (and other TFTP files) off of the TFTP server for
a few years now, and this is the first time I've seen an EC cert presented
to me.

On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 10:02 PM Ryan Ratliff (rratliff) 
wrote:

> TCP/6972 is hosted by the TFTP service specifically for secure download of
> configuration files and firmware (HTTPS using the Callmanager-EC cert) by
> endpoints. It’s using EC because only endpoints that support strong
> encryption will use support HTTPS downloads via TFTP.
>
> TCP/6970 is for the same as HTTP
>
> TCP/6971 is for the same as HTTPS using the Tomcat certificate (for Jabber)
>
>
> None of these are intended to be used by your browser, though it works
> perfectly well for testing and troubleshooting.
>
>
>
> Ryan Ratliff
>
> Manager, Cisco Cloud Collaboration TAC
>
> Standard Business Hours: 8:00AM-5:00PM EDT
> Email: rratl...@cisco.com
>
> Office: +1 919-476-2081
>
> Mobile: +1-919-225-0448
>
> Cisco U.S. Contact Numbers: +1-800-553-2447 or +1-408-526-7209
>
>
>
> *From: *cisco-voip  on behalf of
> Anthony Holloway 
> *Date: *Tuesday, September 3, 2019 at 10:03 PM
> *To: *cisco-voip list 
> *Subject: *[cisco-voip] CUCM 11.5(1)SU6, Port 6972 and EC Certs
>
>
>
> So, I just ran into something interesting where someone else took care of
> the certs for a CUCM I now have access to, and while the main CCMAdmin
> pages load fine in my browser with a full chain of trust, the 6972 page(s)
> are being delivered as EC certs, which were not signed, and thus, I get a
> warning in my browser.
>
>
>
> Now, I have other CUCM deployments under my belt where the Tomcat RSA
> certs are signed and EC not, because the default setting for CUCM is to not
> use EC certs until you tell it to.  These deployments still present the RSA
> cert to me for 6972.
>
>
>
> The only difference is the SU6 part.
>
>
>
> I couldn't find anything in the release notes nor in the bug search, and
> so I'm wondering if any of you know what might be happening.
>
>
>
> I tried toggling the HTTP Ciphers from RSA only to All and back again, but
> that didn't work.
>
>
>
> I tried re-uploading the RSA cert chain, starting from root, and then back
> through the 2 intermediates (yes, three layers deep, it's a public CA
> chain).
>
>
>
> I've restarted Tomcat, I've deactivated/reactivate TFTP, I've rebooted the
> cluster, and I'm just at a loss.  It's not that big of a deal, it just
> bothers me that I don't know why it's doing this.
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


[cisco-voip] CUCM 11.5(1)SU6, Port 6972 and EC Certs

2019-09-03 Thread Anthony Holloway
So, I just ran into something interesting where someone else took care of
the certs for a CUCM I now have access to, and while the main CCMAdmin
pages load fine in my browser with a full chain of trust, the 6972 page(s)
are being delivered as EC certs, which were not signed, and thus, I get a
warning in my browser.

Now, I have other CUCM deployments under my belt where the Tomcat RSA certs
are signed and EC not, because the default setting for CUCM is to not use
EC certs until you tell it to.  These deployments still present the RSA
cert to me for 6972.

The only difference is the SU6 part.

I couldn't find anything in the release notes nor in the bug search, and so
I'm wondering if any of you know what might be happening.

I tried toggling the HTTP Ciphers from RSA only to All and back again, but
that didn't work.

I tried re-uploading the RSA cert chain, starting from root, and then back
through the 2 intermediates (yes, three layers deep, it's a public CA
chain).

I've restarted Tomcat, I've deactivated/reactivate TFTP, I've rebooted the
cluster, and I'm just at a loss.  It's not that big of a deal, it just
bothers me that I don't know why it's doing this.
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX 11.6 HA LAN to WAN

2019-09-03 Thread Anthony Holloway
As with most things, I think you're safe doing what makes the most sense
for your given set of requirements.

The design guide does mention a few key points on the topic.

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cust_contact/contact_center/crs/express_11_6_2/design/guide/uccx_b_ccx-solution-design-guide-1162/uccx_b_ccx-solution-design-guide-1162_chapter_0101.html#UCCX_RF_U938BBDA_00


Have you read through this?

E.g., "Set up Unified CCX to use the local Unified CM servers for both
primary and secondary in the following configurations. If this is not
possible, at least the primary Unified CM server should be local."

On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 11:35 AM Michael Nickolich <
michael.nickol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you guys for all your feedback! This exactly what we were looking
> for with this move.Based on the responses, we'll need to do the HA WAN and
> new hostname. Current config has the device pool as UCCX_ABC, so the agents
> would eventually fail-over to CUCM Sub C in DC2. CUCM Sub A and B, as well
> as CUCM Pub are in DC1 and will be down for a majority of the day as they
> upgrade power in DC1. Honestly, not sure that I prefer that they have to
> prefer CUCM Sub in DC2, but I was worried about the agents ability to
> authenticate with their local end user accounts.
>
> Could we just keep HA LAN and update the UCCX Unified CM Configuration to
> include Sub C in DC2? Current AXL Service Providers only list the CUCM Pub,
> and JTAPI and RmCm both have CUCM Sub A and B in DC1. Could I just add Sub
> C as a secondary AXL Service Provider and then swap out one of the Subs
> listed in DC1 to Sub C in DC2 for both JTAPI and RmCm?
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 1:19 PM Brian Meade  wrote:
>
>> Yea, I think the process would work fine with new hostname.  I'm
>> wondering if deleting a sub and re-adding/rebuilding with same hostname as
>> WAN causes some issues which needed that cleanup script.
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 11:06 AM Anthony Holloway <
>> avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You can't convert the model from LAN to WAN, per se.  You basically just
>>> destroy your HA by deleting the Sub from the Pub GUI.  Then delete your Sub
>>> VM.  Then, you rebuild the whole Sub integration from scratch, as if it was
>>> new.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 9:55 AM Brian Meade  wrote:
>>>
>>>> HA over WAN allows each server to have different configurations for the
>>>> Unified CM connection as well as your call control groups.  So you could
>>>> have the subscriber connect to a local CUCM subscriber and have different
>>>> device pools for those CTI groups to use that local subscriber as well.
>>>>
>>>> I've definitely seen some bugs with HA over WAN in older versions but
>>>> it should be pretty stable now.
>>>>
>>>> I've never tried to convert an existing subscriber from LAN to WAN.
>>>> There may indeed be some database references that don't get fully cleaned
>>>> up when deleting the subscriber from the publisher.  You would probably
>>>> have better luck using a different hostname for the new subscriber.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 10:45 AM Michael Nickolich <
>>>> michael.nickol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello all,
>>>>>
>>>>> We are looking to geographical separate our HA UCCX 11.6.1 nodes,
>>>>> which are currently in "data center 1". We will be installing the UCCX Sub
>>>>> at our other data center across campus, which is connected by 10Gb fiber.
>>>>> "Data Center 2" already has two UCM Subscribers and this is where the UCCX
>>>>> Sub will reside. My question is when we install the new Sub, will we 
>>>>> select
>>>>> HA over LAN or HA over WAN? TAC said it needs to be HA over WAN as the Pub
>>>>> and Sub will be on different networks. TAC also said they would need to
>>>>> have root access to delete the Sub from the Pub and delete any traces of
>>>>> the old Sub. Then add the Sub back to the Pub. The documentation does not
>>>>> mention anything about contacting TAC to gain root access for Switching
>>>>> Network Deployment from LAN to WAN. Just wondering if their documentation
>>>>> needs updated or if the TAC engineer misspoke.
>>>>>
>>>>> We will be keeping the same hostname for the server. Going to have our
>>>>> Sys Admins to lower the TTL on the original record prior to making these
&g

Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX 11.6 HA LAN to WAN

2019-08-30 Thread Anthony Holloway
You can't convert the model from LAN to WAN, per se.  You basically just
destroy your HA by deleting the Sub from the Pub GUI.  Then delete your Sub
VM.  Then, you rebuild the whole Sub integration from scratch, as if it was
new.

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 9:55 AM Brian Meade  wrote:

> HA over WAN allows each server to have different configurations for the
> Unified CM connection as well as your call control groups.  So you could
> have the subscriber connect to a local CUCM subscriber and have different
> device pools for those CTI groups to use that local subscriber as well.
>
> I've definitely seen some bugs with HA over WAN in older versions but it
> should be pretty stable now.
>
> I've never tried to convert an existing subscriber from LAN to WAN.  There
> may indeed be some database references that don't get fully cleaned up when
> deleting the subscriber from the publisher.  You would probably have better
> luck using a different hostname for the new subscriber.
>
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 10:45 AM Michael Nickolich <
> michael.nickol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> We are looking to geographical separate our HA UCCX 11.6.1 nodes, which
>> are currently in "data center 1". We will be installing the UCCX Sub at our
>> other data center across campus, which is connected by 10Gb fiber. "Data
>> Center 2" already has two UCM Subscribers and this is where the UCCX Sub
>> will reside. My question is when we install the new Sub, will we select HA
>> over LAN or HA over WAN? TAC said it needs to be HA over WAN as the Pub and
>> Sub will be on different networks. TAC also said they would need to have
>> root access to delete the Sub from the Pub and delete any traces of the old
>> Sub. Then add the Sub back to the Pub. The documentation does not mention
>> anything about contacting TAC to gain root access for Switching Network
>> Deployment from LAN to WAN. Just wondering if their documentation needs
>> updated or if the TAC engineer misspoke.
>>
>> We will be keeping the same hostname for the server. Going to have our
>> Sys Admins to lower the TTL on the original record prior to making these
>> changes. Once we remove the Sub, have the Sys Admin update the A and PTR
>> record to point to the new IP and set TTL back to the default. Then verify
>> DNS resolution to the new IP.
>> Then install the new UCCX Sub. Still not sure HA over LAN or WAN.
>> Then update AXL, JTAPI, and RmCM to include one UCM Sub from data center
>> 2 in case there is a total outage in data center 1. Currently AXL only has
>> the UCM Pub.
>>
>> Any guidance on any gotchas would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> ___
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX 11.6 HA LAN to WAN

2019-08-30 Thread Anthony Holloway
You shouldn't need TAC to perform the cleanup of the Sub, but it's my
understanding that they already know that the action of deleting the server
is not 100% clean, so they have a command (a script) to run as root to
clean up some left behind entries.  I'd just as soon have them do this, as
it costs you literally nothing, and is a good peace of mind.

As for LAN or WAN, that's really up to you.  For example, do you want the
UCCX Sub to prefer the CUCM Subs in DC2?  If yes, then you *have to* choose
WAN, because that's the only model by which you can specify a different
configuration (like Device Pools) per server.  Choosing LAN locks your Sub
into the same config as your Pub.

Make sure you know the Password Managment passwords, because they don't
sync between servers.

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 9:44 AM Michael Nickolich <
michael.nickol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> We are looking to geographical separate our HA UCCX 11.6.1 nodes, which
> are currently in "data center 1". We will be installing the UCCX Sub at our
> other data center across campus, which is connected by 10Gb fiber. "Data
> Center 2" already has two UCM Subscribers and this is where the UCCX Sub
> will reside. My question is when we install the new Sub, will we select HA
> over LAN or HA over WAN? TAC said it needs to be HA over WAN as the Pub and
> Sub will be on different networks. TAC also said they would need to have
> root access to delete the Sub from the Pub and delete any traces of the old
> Sub. Then add the Sub back to the Pub. The documentation does not mention
> anything about contacting TAC to gain root access for Switching Network
> Deployment from LAN to WAN. Just wondering if their documentation needs
> updated or if the TAC engineer misspoke.
>
> We will be keeping the same hostname for the server. Going to have our Sys
> Admins to lower the TTL on the original record prior to making these
> changes. Once we remove the Sub, have the Sys Admin update the A and PTR
> record to point to the new IP and set TTL back to the default. Then verify
> DNS resolution to the new IP.
> Then install the new UCCX Sub. Still not sure HA over LAN or WAN.
> Then update AXL, JTAPI, and RmCM to include one UCM Sub from data center 2
> in case there is a total outage in data center 1. Currently AXL only has
> the UCM Pub.
>
> Any guidance on any gotchas would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> ___
> 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] CIMC MIC self-signed cert and new browsers

2019-08-29 Thread Anthony Holloway
Another thing I've noticed is with HSTS, you cannot bypass the cert warning
until you fix your cert issue on the server, or until you trick your
browser into connecting anyway.

https://appuals.com/how-to-clear-or-disable-hsts-for-chrome-firefox-and-internet-explorer/


Also, it looks like you're connecting to CIMC via IP.  Whenever HTTPS is
involved its to your benefit to access via FQDN.  I've just slowly been
switching over to using FQDN 100% of the time and never using IP addresses
anymore.

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 1:03 AM Ryan Huff  wrote:

> May want to look at the browser’s address bar and see if there is an
> applet / plugin looking for permission to run.
>
> - R
>
> On Aug 29, 2019, at 01:56, Dana Tong  wrote:
>
> 
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> New server install. Trying to login to the CIMC to configure. Chrome,
> Firefox, IE all have a hissy fit. I did manage to get in once on one of the
> servers using firefox and dropping the max TLS version to 3. But after
> setting the password and change IP and hostname, it won’t let me back in.
>
>
>
> Chrome just keeps going round and round if I choose to proceed.
>
>
>
> Any tricks on getting browsers to work with this?
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpuck.nether.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcisco-voipdata=02%7C01%7C%7C32e674038823488117a708d72c45a38b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637026549912353727sdata=ZM3mj04f3VhSRBo8SE7H%2BSsW4BSWcERP2JKnuktei0A%3Dreserved=0
>
> ___
> 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] PSA: Hunt Groups and Alerting Names

2019-08-28 Thread Anthony Holloway
Update: I tried to use this solution on an 11.5(1)SU6 system, and it didn't
work.  This is not great, but neither is the original issue.

When I looked at the Call-Info header, it was different that the 11.5(1)SU5
system I tested on.

The %22 was not in the header, rather it looked like this:

huntpiloturi="Your Hunt Pilot Name";

And in order to correct it to look like this (placement of double quotes):

huntpiloturi="Your Hunt Pilot Name";

I had to adjust the gsub find/replace with this:

local new_call_info = string.gsub(old_call_info,
"huntpiloturi=\"(.*)<(.*)>\";", "huntpiloturi=\"%1\"<%2>;")

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 11:40 AM Anthony Holloway <
avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I was configuring some new stuff for a customer recently, and as I was
> making test calls, I noticed the 7800/8800 series phones were not showing
> the Hunt Pilot Alerting Name like I'm used to.
>
>
>
> I found a defect (CSCvn39109
> <https://bst.cloudapps.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCvn39109>) which
> basically says that CUCM 11.5(1)SU5+ was updated to change the way it
> presents the Hunt Pilot name to the phone, and the phone firmware has not
> been updated to parse it.
>
>
>
> I implemented a SIP Normalization script on the SIP Profile applied to the
> phones, which rolls back the format to pre- CUCM 11.5(1)SU5.
>
>
>
> That Lua script looks like this:
>
>
>
> M = {}
>
>
>
> local function hunt_uri_rollback(msg)
>
>
>
> local old_call_info = msg:getHeader("Call-Info")
>
> local new_call_info = string.gsub(old_call_info,
> "huntpiloturi=\"%%22(.*)%%22(.*)\";", "huntpiloturi=\"%1\"%2;")
>
> msg:modifyHeader("Call-Info", new_call_info)
>
>
>
> end
>
>
>
> M.outbound_INVITE = hunt_uri_rollback
>
> M.outbound_UPDATE = hunt_uri_rollback
>
>
>
> return M
>
>
>
> Again, you apply it to a SIP Profile, which you then apply to the phone.
> Then restart the phone.
>
>
> The Pre-Lua script Call-Info header looks like this:
>
>
> Call-Info: ; security= Unknown;
> orientation= from; gci= 4-166949; *huntpiloturi="%22Your Hunt Pilot
> Name%22>";* isVoip;
> call-instance= 1
>
>
> The Post-Lua script Call-Info header looks like this:
>
>
> Call-Info: ; security= Unknown;
> orientation= from; gci= 4-166949; *huntpiloturi="Your Hunt Pilot
> Name">;* isVoip;
> call-instance= 1
>
>
> Seeing the alerting name on the phone is a really useful feature in my
> opinion, and so I hope this helps you out until Cisco fixes this with a
> software patch.
>
>
> PS Make sure you have the CM Advanced Service Parameter set to True
> (default): Display Hunt Pilot Name or DN for Hunt Group Calls When
> Alerting.
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


Re: [cisco-voip] PRI Inbound and Two-Stage Dialing

2019-08-28 Thread Anthony Holloway
Bump

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 10:50 AM Anthony Holloway <
avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:

> A few years ago, Cisco introduced us to the Toll Fraud prevention changes
> in 15.1(2)T
> <https://www.google.com/search?q=cisco+ios+15.1%282%29+toll+fraud>, and
> one of the changes was dealing with two-stage dialing.
>
> Pre-15.1(2)T, two-stage dialing was the default behavior on an inbound
> POTS dial-peer for calls coming in from a PRI.
>
> You would have to use the following command to switch to one/single stage
> dialing:
>
> *direct-inward-dial*
>
> Once the toll fraud change came through, you no longer needed to do this.
> However, if you upgraded or typed it in new, no harm done either.
>
> I was just helping a co-worker on a new ISR 4431 running 16.6(4), and he
> was getting two-stage dialing for inbound calls to his PRI, with an inbound
> dial-peer like:
>
> *dial-peer voice 1100 pots*
> * translation-profile incoming lets-do-this*
> * incoming called-number .*
> *!*
>
> It wasn't until we put the DID command on the dial-peer that it started to
> behave correctly.
>
> Did Cisco change back to defaulting to two-stage dialing?  Internet
> searches, and bug search tool searches are not showing me that it has.
> Anyone here know what's up?
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


Re: [cisco-voip] Bug Search Code Injection

2019-08-28 Thread Anthony Holloway
Here is the response I got back after Cisco looked into my report:

*"And as CDETS is not accessible to external users no malicious code can be
entered and internal users will not enter any malicious code."*


On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 10:02 AM Anthony Holloway <
avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:

> FWIW I submitted feedback via the website and have already been contacted
> by someone on the Bug Search Tool team stating they're looking in to it.
>
> [image: image.png]
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 9:35 AM Anthony Holloway <
> avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Looks like I stumbled across some code injection on the following defect
>> page:
>>
>> https://bst.cloudapps.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCvq27976
>>
>> It's innocent enough, but concerning that it's even possible.
>>
>> [image: image.png]
>>
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


[cisco-voip] PRI Inbound and Two-Stage Dialing

2019-08-26 Thread Anthony Holloway
A few years ago, Cisco introduced us to the Toll Fraud prevention changes
in 15.1(2)T
, and one
of the changes was dealing with two-stage dialing.

Pre-15.1(2)T, two-stage dialing was the default behavior on an inbound POTS
dial-peer for calls coming in from a PRI.

You would have to use the following command to switch to one/single stage
dialing:

*direct-inward-dial*

Once the toll fraud change came through, you no longer needed to do this.
However, if you upgraded or typed it in new, no harm done either.

I was just helping a co-worker on a new ISR 4431 running 16.6(4), and he
was getting two-stage dialing for inbound calls to his PRI, with an inbound
dial-peer like:

*dial-peer voice 1100 pots*
* translation-profile incoming lets-do-this*
* incoming called-number .*
*!*

It wasn't until we put the DID command on the dial-peer that it started to
behave correctly.

Did Cisco change back to defaulting to two-stage dialing?  Internet
searches, and bug search tool searches are not showing me that it has.
Anyone here know what's up?
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


Re: [cisco-voip] CME 12.5 SIP

2019-08-26 Thread Anthony Holloway
I was going to mention that, but your email signature Chat button doesn't
work.

Just kidding.  Kudos to Kent for the quick thinking.

But why did you turn off KPML?

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 1:41 AM Heim, Dennis  wrote:

> The issue was related to the overlay (VXLAN), that I use in our lab
> environment. The overhead of around 50 bytes caused the UDP packet to
> fragment, and it was not handled well. The solution was to switch the
> phones from UDP to TCP at the voice register pool level.
>
>
>
> voice register pool  <#>
>
> id mac 
>
> session-transport tcp
>
> type 7942
>
> number 1 dn 2
>
> no digit collect kpml
>
> dialplan 1
>
> dtmf-relay sip-kpml sip-notify
>
> username mblack2 password Cisc0123
>
> codec g711ulaw
>
> no vad
>
>
>
> *Dennis Heim | Domain Architect (Collaboration Labs)*
>
> World Wide Technology, Inc. | +1 314-212-1814
>
> [image: cid:image001.png@01D10DD2.7FC81F90]
> 
>
> [image: cid:image002.png@01D10DD2.7FC81F90][image:
> cid:image003.png@01D10DD2.7FC81F90] <+13142121814>[image:
> cid:image004.png@01D10DD2.7FC81F90]
>
>
>
> “The most powerful person in the world is the story teller. The
> storyteller sets the vision, values and agenda of an entire generation that
> is to come” – Steve Jobs
>
> “Leadership isn’t a different maker. It is the difference maker” – Tim
> Kight
>
> "Leaders who don't listen will eventually be surrounded by people who have
> nothing to say" --- Andy Stanley
>
> "Worry less about who you might offend, and more about who you might
> inspire" -- Tim Allen
>
> “Imagination is more important than knowledge.”  -- Albert Einstein
>
> “If you can raise the level of effort and performance in those around you,
> you are officially a leader” – Urban Meyer
>
> “The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we
> miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it.” -- Michelangelo Buonarroti
>
> “Mediocore managers play checkers (assuming everyone is the same). Great
> managers play chess (acknowledging that everyone is unique)” – Marcus
> Buckingham
>
> “If you’re not failing every now and again, it’s a sign you’re not doing
> anything very innovative” – Woody Allen
>
>
>
> *Click here to join me in my Collaboration Meeting Room
> *
>
>
>
> *From:* Sreekanth Narayanan (sreenara) 
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 25, 2019 11:34 PM
> *To:* Kent Roberts ; Heim, Dennis 
> *Cc:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* RE: [cisco-voip] CME 12.5 SIP
>
>
>
> This behavior sounds as though the phone thinks it’s registered to the
> CME, but isn’t..
>
> What are the outputs of these commands?
>
> show voice register pool all brief
>
> show voice register global
>
> show voice register pool 
>
>
>
> Also, take a packet capture from the CME if you can to see if any SIP
> packets are making it to the router. It could also be a binding problem on
> the interface.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Sreekanth
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Kent
> Roberts
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 25, 2019 9:42 AM
> *To:* Heim, Dennis 
> *Cc:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] CME 12.5 SIP
>
>
>
> Have you tried it with tcp on that dial peer?   I know it sounds stupid,
> but never know these days…..
>
>
>
> On Aug 24, 2019, at 10:07 PM, Heim, Dennis  wrote:
>
>
>
> I am configuring CME 12.5 with SIP phones. However, when I dial from the
> phone, I see nothing on the router from either dial-peer or ccsip traces.
> When I dial any of the numbers such as +13145552002, the SIP phone just
> sits there and eventually gives you reorder.
>
>
>
> ip dhcp pool PSTN-Voice
>
> network 10.1.100.0 255.255.255.0
>
> default-router 10.1.100.1
>
>  option 150 ip 10.1.100.1
>
>  dns-server 10.1.5.14
>
>  domain-name ciscoclass.com
>
> class PSTN-Voice-Range-Class
>
>   address range 10.1.100.100 10.1.100.199
>
>
>
> voice service voip
>
> no ip address trusted authenticate
>
> address-hiding
>
> media disable-detailed-stats
>
> allow-connections sip to sip
>
> no supplementary-service sip handle-replaces
>
> sip
>
>   bind control source-interface GigabitEthernet2
>
>   bind media source-interface GigabitEthernet2
>
>   registrar server expires max 1200 min 300
>
>   early-offer forced
>
> !
>
> voice class codec 1
>
> codec preference 1 g711ulaw
>
>
>
> voice register global
>
> mode cme
>
> source-address 10.1.100.1 port 5060
>
> max-dn 10
>
> max-pool 10
>
> authenticate register
>
> authenticate realm all
>
> timezone 8
>
> service https
>
> tftp-path flash:
>
> create profile sync 0274021104025313
>
> auto-register
>
> !
>
> voice register dn  1
>
> number +13175551000
>
> name PSTN Phone
>
> label PSTN-3175551000
>
> !
>
> voice register pool  1
>
> id mac 3CCE.7359.9A93
>
> type 7942
>
> number 1 dn 1
>
> dtmf-relay rtp-nte
>
> username  password 
>
> codec g711ulaw
>
> no vad
>
> !
>
> interface GigabitEthernet1
>
> description ** SIP SP **
>
> ip address 10.1.20.1 255.255.255.0
>
> ip tcp adjust-mss 

Re: [cisco-voip] Bug Search Code Injection

2019-08-22 Thread Anthony Holloway
FWIW I submitted feedback via the website and have already been contacted
by someone on the Bug Search Tool team stating they're looking in to it.

[image: image.png]

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 9:35 AM Anthony Holloway <
avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Looks like I stumbled across some code injection on the following defect
> page:
>
> https://bst.cloudapps.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCvq27976
>
> It's innocent enough, but concerning that it's even possible.
>
> [image: image.png]
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


Re: [cisco-voip] Bug Search Code Injection

2019-08-20 Thread Anthony Holloway
Correct, you got it.

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 2:15 PM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:

> Ah. Gotcha.
>
>
>
> For some reason, I thought it was an example of a vulnerability on Cisco’s
> site that you could inject code into.
>
>
>
> But it’s an example of a “malicious site” with code that would execute on
> your machine.
>
>
>
> Plus, like you said, you don’t know the details of the bug!
>
>
>
> ---
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
>
>
> *From:* Anthony Holloway 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 20, 2019 1:54 PM
> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi 
> *Cc:* Norton, Mike ; Cisco VoIP Group <
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Bug Search Code Injection
>
>
>
> Basically someone typed in some HTML code into the bug description, and
> when my browser received/rendered the page content, my browser saw this
> code as code it needed to execute, hence the  text box was
> rendered as opposed to the text "" just being shown on the page
> (like how it is in the title.
>
>
>
> Now, while this page is not doing anything harmful at the moment, it's not
> impossible for the code to have been:
>
>
>
> <a  rel="nofollow" href="https://myharmfulwebsite.com/code-you-dont-want.js">https://myharmfulwebsite.com/code-you-dont-want.js</a>
>
>
>
> Then my browser would have downloaded and executed that.
>
>
>
> I'm no hacker, but I know this can't be good.
>
>
>
> Also, if nothing else, it ruins the value of the bug itself, because
> people like you don't know what the hell it's trying to tell you.  Know
> what I mean man?
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 12:42 PM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
>
> Ok – for those of us less knowledgeable, how exactly is this “code
> injection” ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Anthony
> Holloway
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 20, 2019 1:38 PM
> *To:* Norton, Mike 
> *Cc:* Cisco VoIP Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Bug Search Code Injection
>
>
>
> Exactly.  Like there might be a feature disabled for preventing code
> injection on the site as a whole, and not all code injection displays
> something like that.  In fact, I'd wager an attack via code injection would
> go unnoticed by the user all together.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 12:08 PM Norton, Mike 
> wrote:
>
> Used to be that reading documentation articles about “null” – e.g. null
> routes, Null 0 interface, etc. – would give some rather, uh, “interesting”
> results in the related community discussions box off to the side of the
> article. Agreed it is rather concerning. Basically every language has
> standard functions for properly sanitizing/escaping text so there is no
> excuse other than sloppiness... which makes one wonder what else they are
> sloppy with.
>
> -mn
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Anthony
> Holloway
> *Sent:* August 20, 2019 8:35 AM
> *To:* Cisco VoIP Group 
> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] Bug Search Code Injection
>
>
>
> Looks like I stumbled across some code injection on the following defect
> page:
>
>
>
> https://bst.cloudapps.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCvq27976
>
>
>
> It's innocent enough, but concerning that it's even possible.
>
>
>
> [image: image.png]
>
> ___
> 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] Bug Search Code Injection

2019-08-20 Thread Anthony Holloway
Basically someone typed in some HTML code into the bug description, and
when my browser received/rendered the page content, my browser saw this
code as code it needed to execute, hence the  text box was
rendered as opposed to the text "" just being shown on the page
(like how it is in the title.

Now, while this page is not doing anything harmful at the moment, it's not
impossible for the code to have been:

<a  rel="nofollow" href="https://myharmfulwebsite.com/code-you-dont-want.js">https://myharmfulwebsite.com/code-you-dont-want.js</a>

Then my browser would have downloaded and executed that.

I'm no hacker, but I know this can't be good.

Also, if nothing else, it ruins the value of the bug itself, because people
like you don't know what the hell it's trying to tell you.  Know what I
mean man?

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 12:42 PM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:

> Ok – for those of us less knowledgeable, how exactly is this “code
> injection” ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Anthony
> Holloway
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 20, 2019 1:38 PM
> *To:* Norton, Mike 
> *Cc:* Cisco VoIP Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Bug Search Code Injection
>
>
>
> Exactly.  Like there might be a feature disabled for preventing code
> injection on the site as a whole, and not all code injection displays
> something like that.  In fact, I'd wager an attack via code injection would
> go unnoticed by the user all together.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 12:08 PM Norton, Mike 
> wrote:
>
> Used to be that reading documentation articles about “null” – e.g. null
> routes, Null 0 interface, etc. – would give some rather, uh, “interesting”
> results in the related community discussions box off to the side of the
> article. Agreed it is rather concerning. Basically every language has
> standard functions for properly sanitizing/escaping text so there is no
> excuse other than sloppiness... which makes one wonder what else they are
> sloppy with.
>
> -mn
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Anthony
> Holloway
> *Sent:* August 20, 2019 8:35 AM
> *To:* Cisco VoIP Group 
> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] Bug Search Code Injection
>
>
>
> Looks like I stumbled across some code injection on the following defect
> page:
>
>
>
> https://bst.cloudapps.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCvq27976
>
>
>
> It's innocent enough, but concerning that it's even possible.
>
>
>
> [image: image.png]
>
> ___
> 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] Bug Search Code Injection

2019-08-20 Thread Anthony Holloway
Exactly.  Like there might be a feature disabled for preventing code
injection on the site as a whole, and not all code injection displays
something like that.  In fact, I'd wager an attack via code injection would
go unnoticed by the user all together.

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 12:08 PM Norton, Mike 
wrote:

> Used to be that reading documentation articles about “null” – e.g. null
> routes, Null 0 interface, etc. – would give some rather, uh, “interesting”
> results in the related community discussions box off to the side of the
> article. Agreed it is rather concerning. Basically every language has
> standard functions for properly sanitizing/escaping text so there is no
> excuse other than sloppiness... which makes one wonder what else they are
> sloppy with.
>
> -mn
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Anthony
> Holloway
> *Sent:* August 20, 2019 8:35 AM
> *To:* Cisco VoIP Group 
> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] Bug Search Code Injection
>
>
>
> Looks like I stumbled across some code injection on the following defect
> page:
>
>
>
> https://bst.cloudapps.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCvq27976
>
>
>
> It's innocent enough, but concerning that it's even possible.
>
>
>
> [image: image.png]
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


[cisco-voip] Bug Search Code Injection

2019-08-20 Thread Anthony Holloway
Looks like I stumbled across some code injection on the following defect
page:

https://bst.cloudapps.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCvq27976

It's innocent enough, but concerning that it's even possible.

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


Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM SU release cycle

2019-08-19 Thread Anthony Holloway
That's some good insight.  Thanks for sharing.

On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 7:25 AM Pawlowski, Adam  wrote:

> I agree on several points you've made. As we continue to "run lean"
> (meaning, in some cases, on fumes) and our management and leadership are
> bombarded with firms offering to deliver everything we do as a managed
> service that just fountains in over the "cloud", the reality of it is that
> we're compared against these claims.
>
> We've built here a responsible and flexible service, with which we can
> offer to any of our customers a robust set of features. That being said we
> see on average a 4% take on features such as SNR, Jabber, etc. We are not
> aggressive in our marketing, and at times I'd term it elusive even, so we
> could do better. But that means that 95% of people will probably deal with
> the basics.
>
> That is somewhat what I am trying to prepare us for, not building rube
> Goldberg line forwarding and shared line arrangements, and insisting on
> each customer having their own extension. I feel like if we switch
> platforms, or delivery methods, this will make things easier. Even this has
> been painful to implement, and not always practical.
>
> Regarding upgrades, we've limited ourselves to major upgrade windows
> biannually, and quarterly for SUs, non-critical COPs, etc. Despite
> everything being rubber stamped "24x7" , in reality very few things are. We
> push our maintenance to run overnight, or Friday evening into Saturday, and
> we go from there. IIRC you were cloning or rebuilding VMs within VMWare and
> juggling their connections to try and minimize downtime, but, we've found
> that as long as security and physical plant can operate in some regard, no
> one else really cares.
>
> Best,
>
> Adam
> ___
> 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] CUCM SU release cycle

2019-08-15 Thread Anthony Holloway
So if I do the math...

No more minor versions
...punches some keys...

And 2 month SU cycles
...punches more keys

With an upper limit of 3 SUs
...punches even more keys...

That's a new major version every 6 months!

That means we'll see
..key punching intensifies...

CUCM 69 by mid-2046.  Just in time for me to retire!

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:57 AM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:

> Pretty sure I remember them saying there likely wouldn’t be that many SU’s
> either, three at most?
>
>
>
> **sigh**
>
>
>
> ---
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Anthony
> Holloway
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 15, 2019 11:50 AM
> *To:* Charles Goldsmith 
> *Cc:* cisco-voip voyp list 
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM SU release cycle
>
>
>
> Make it SU5 in memory of the .5 releases.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 9:18 AM Charles Goldsmith  wrote:
>
> I didn't see an announcement, was just told about the change, Cisco
> doesn't like us waiting for the .5 release to push out to customers.  We
> all know that the .0 releases have historically been more challenging.
>
>
>
> So now, I plan to wait until at least su2 before upgrading :)
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 9:15 AM Anthony Holloway <
> avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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  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 <
> avholloway+cisco-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  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  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
> 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
> 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
>
> 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] CUCM SU release cycle

2019-08-15 Thread Anthony Holloway
Make it SU5 in memory of the .5 releases.

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 9:18 AM Charles Goldsmith  wrote:

> I didn't see an announcement, was just told about the change, Cisco
> doesn't like us waiting for the .5 release to push out to customers.  We
> all know that the .0 releases have historically been more challenging.
>
> So now, I plan to wait until at least su2 before upgrading :)
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 9:15 AM Anthony Holloway <
> avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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  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 <
>>> avholloway+cisco-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  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  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
>>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> 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] CUCM SU release cycle

2019-08-15 Thread Anthony Holloway
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  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 <
> avholloway+cisco-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  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  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
>>> 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
>> 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
>
> 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] CUCM SU release cycle

2019-08-15 Thread Anthony Holloway
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  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  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
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Ki Wi
>> ___
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


Re: [cisco-voip] Unity DRS components

2019-08-12 Thread Anthony Holloway
[image: image.png]

Source: Install, Upgrade, and Maintenance Guide for Cisco Unity Connection
Release 11.x



On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 9:22 AM Charles Goldsmith  wrote:

> Unity Connection has always been the oddball, the pub only backs it self
> up, you have to schedule the sub to do it's own backup.
>
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 8:30 AM Myron Young 
> wrote:
>
>> Morning,
>>
>> Is it just me or shouldn’t both the Unity Pub and Sub servers be shown as
>> available “components registered with Disaster Recovery System” when
>> running either a manual or scheduled backup?
>>
>>  I see all nodes in the cluster for UCM but not seeing it on the Unity
>> cluster; and confirmed the DRS local and master services are running on
>> both servers.
>> ___
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


Re: [cisco-voip] UC 12.5 zero out report

2019-08-08 Thread Anthony Holloway
Its kind of in an inconspicuous spot.  Go to the page where you find users,
and then look at the bottom row of buttons.  You would check the boxes next
to the users you want to edit, and click the bulk edit button.  This is not
CSV based, just GUI driven.  The limitation here is your ability to filter
for the correct set of users, whereas a csv based edit has no such
restriction.



On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 4:16 PM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:

>
> I’ll have to look again. I’m on 11.x and I couldn’t find the bulk edit
> just bulk admin.
>
> From what I remember bulk edit was prompt/wizard based. BAT was csv based.
>
> *-sent from mobile device-*
>
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 <519-824-4120;56354> | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
> On Aug 8, 2019, at 5:10 PM, Anthony Holloway <
> avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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  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
>>
>>
>>
>> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Scott
>> Voll
>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 8, 2019 4:27 PM
>> *To:* 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
>> 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] UC 12.5 zero out report

2019-08-08 Thread Anthony Holloway
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  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
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Scott
> Voll
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 8, 2019 4:27 PM
> *To:* 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
> 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] UC 12.5 zero out report

2019-08-08 Thread Anthony Holloway
Have you given User Data Dump

a try?

*Caller Input Key Actions.  This value will dump out a human readable
action string for each of the 12 user input keys for all users.  Columns
“CALLER_INPUT_0” through “CALLER_INPUT_9”, “CALLER_INPUT_*” and
“CALLER_INPUT_#” will be added to the output.  The action strings for these
columns will read like “Send to greeting for call handler: operator”, or
“Ignore”, or “Take Message”.  The strings will look very similar to what
you see on the user input key page in the SA.*

*Source: *
http://ciscounitytools.com/Applications/CxN/UserDataDump/Help/UserDataDump.htm

On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 3:27 PM Scott Voll  wrote:

> 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
> 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] Azure to Webex User Provisioning and Tokens

2019-08-07 Thread Anthony Holloway
Ok, so it's one-liner to pull an OAuth token from my webex account for an
integration which doesn't exist (or at least, it doesn't require me to
create one first, nor does it create one for me).

Since there is nothing to look at, after the link is processed, it almost
seems like a better idea to create the integration on
https://developer.webex.com/my-apps, obtain the token, so that I have
something to look at/reference later for this integration.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, since Azure is not going to ask for a refresh
token then, this will forever be a task that we manually perform every
year, right?  Perhaps someone will get fancy and write middleware to
refresh the token and push it into Azure, but I'm not even sure if Azure
exposes an API to update that field.

On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 12:05 PM Ryan Ratliff (rratliff) 
wrote:

> The URL is just a shortcut way to get an OAuth token for the integration.
>
>
>
> You can easily do the same thing via the API if you had to.
>
>
>
> Look at the URL itself:
>
> https://idbroker.webex.com/idb/oauth2/v1/authorize
>
>
>
> Here are the parameters for the GET request (leaving the %-encoded
> characters because I’m lazy):
>
> response_type=token
>
> client_id=
>
> redirect_uri=http%3A%2F%2Flocalhost%3A3000%2Fauth%2Fcode
>
> scope=spark%3Apeople_read%20spark%3Apeople_write%20Identity%3ASCIM
>
> state=this-should-be-a-random-string-for-security-purpose
>
>
>
> You can see the definitions of the parameters at
> https://developer.webex.com/docs/integrations.
>
>
>
> A given integration can have only one OAuth token at a time, so if you
> regenerate your token by logging into that URL then it will invalidate any
> previous ones.
>
> The web page isn’t going away, it’s just the URL the OAuth generation
> redirected you to when it generated your token, which happens to include
> your token.
>
> It’s non-developer speak for “don’t close your browser until you copy that
> token”, and worst case, generate a new one.
>
>
>
> Ryan Ratliff
>
> Manager, Cisco Cloud Collaboration TAC
>
> Standard Business Hours: 8:00AM-5:00PM EDT
> Email: rratl...@cisco.com
>
> Office: +1 919-476-2081
>
> Mobile: +1-919-225-0448
>
> Cisco U.S. Contact Numbers: +1-800-553-2447 or +1-408-526-7209
>
>
>
> *From: *cisco-voip  on behalf of
> Anthony Holloway 
> *Date: *Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 12:32 PM
> *To: *Matthew Loraditch 
> *Cc: *cisco-voip list 
> *Subject: *Re: [cisco-voip] Azure to Webex User Provisioning and Tokens
>
>
>
> Thank you for that confirmation.
>
>
>
> It's concerning to me that the note below the URL says:
>
>
>
> "We recommend that you paste this value into a text file and save it, so
> that you have a record of the token in case the URL is not available any
> more."
>
>
>
> Considering the token expires every 365 days.  I sure hope the URL is
> available in the future.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 11:26 AM Matthew Loraditch <
> mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:
>
> FWIW the Cisco documents say the same thing:
> https://help.webex.com/en-us/aumpbz/Synchronize-Azure-Active-Directory-Users-into-Cisco-Webex-Control-Hub
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Matthew Loraditch**​*
>
> *Sr. Network Engineer*
>
> p: *443.541.1518* <443.541.1518>
>
> w: *www.heliontechnologies.com* <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
>
>  |
>
> e: *mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com* 
>
> [image: Helion Technologies] <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
>
> [image: Facebook] <https://facebook.com/heliontech>
>
> [image: Twitter] <https://twitter.com/heliontech>
>
> [image: LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Anthony
> Holloway
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 7, 2019 12:18 PM
> *To:* Cisco VoIP Group 
> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] Azure to Webex User Provisioning and Tokens
>
>
>
> I'm using the following link:
>
>
>
>
> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/active-directory/saas-apps/cisco-webex-provisioning-tutorial
>
>
>
>
> And in step 6 it describes how to obtain the secret token from Cisco, to
> input into Azure.
>
>
>
> It notes that the token is valid for 365 days, however, in my testing it's
> looking like it might be 30 days.
>
>
>
> The resulting URL from step 6 has a URI parameter of:
>
>
>
> expires_in=31535999
>
>
>
> Which if you treat it as seconds, then it's 365 days, so the URL seems to
> match the document.
>
>
>
> I'm wondering if there is anyone with experience on this topic, before I
> put some serious time in with TAC.
>
>
>
> Thanks much!
>
>
>
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


Re: [cisco-voip] Azure to Webex User Provisioning and Tokens

2019-08-07 Thread Anthony Holloway
Thank you for that confirmation.

It's concerning to me that the note below the URL says:

"We recommend that you paste this value into a text file and save it, so
that you have a record of the token in case the URL is not available any
more."

Considering the token expires every 365 days.  I sure hope the URL is
available in the future.

On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 11:26 AM Matthew Loraditch <
mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:

> FWIW the Cisco documents say the same thing:
> https://help.webex.com/en-us/aumpbz/Synchronize-Azure-Active-Directory-Users-into-Cisco-Webex-Control-Hub
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Matthew Loraditch​
> Sr. Network Engineer
> p: *443.541.1518* <443.541.1518>
> w: *www.heliontechnologies.com* <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>  |
> e: *mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com* 
> [image: Helion Technologies] <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
> [image: Facebook] <https://facebook.com/heliontech>
> [image: Twitter] <https://twitter.com/heliontech>
> [image: LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Anthony
> Holloway
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 7, 2019 12:18 PM
> *To:* Cisco VoIP Group 
> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] Azure to Webex User Provisioning and Tokens
>
>
>
> I'm using the following link:
>
>
>
>
> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/active-directory/saas-apps/cisco-webex-provisioning-tutorial
>
>
>
>
> And in step 6 it describes how to obtain the secret token from Cisco, to
> input into Azure.
>
>
>
> It notes that the token is valid for 365 days, however, in my testing it's
> looking like it might be 30 days.
>
>
>
> The resulting URL from step 6 has a URI parameter of:
>
>
>
> expires_in=31535999
>
>
>
> Which if you treat it as seconds, then it's 365 days, so the URL seems to
> match the document.
>
>
>
> I'm wondering if there is anyone with experience on this topic, before I
> put some serious time in with TAC.
>
>
>
> Thanks much!
>
>
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


Re: [cisco-voip] Azure to Webex User Provisioning and Tokens

2019-08-07 Thread Anthony Holloway
I should have also mentioned, every time I access the URL in step 6, I get
a different Secret Token.

It would be good to know if this action is invalidating the previous
tokens, or if they're all active for 365 days.

Since we cannot stop Admins from accessing that URL, I'd hope it's the
latter, but I fear its the former.  All it would take is one curious Admin
to click on the link in the document, and inadvertently break the
integration.

On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 11:17 AM Anthony Holloway <
avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm using the following link:
>
>
> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/active-directory/saas-apps/cisco-webex-provisioning-tutorial
>
>
> And in step 6 it describes how to obtain the secret token from Cisco, to
> input into Azure.
>
> It notes that the token is valid for 365 days, however, in my testing it's
> looking like it might be 30 days.
>
> The resulting URL from step 6 has a URI parameter of:
>
> expires_in=31535999
>
> Which if you treat it as seconds, then it's 365 days, so the URL seems to
> match the document.
>
> I'm wondering if there is anyone with experience on this topic, before I
> put some serious time in with TAC.
>
> Thanks much!
>
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


[cisco-voip] Azure to Webex User Provisioning and Tokens

2019-08-07 Thread Anthony Holloway
I'm using the following link:

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/active-directory/saas-apps/cisco-webex-provisioning-tutorial


And in step 6 it describes how to obtain the secret token from Cisco, to
input into Azure.

It notes that the token is valid for 365 days, however, in my testing it's
looking like it might be 30 days.

The resulting URL from step 6 has a URI parameter of:

expires_in=31535999

Which if you treat it as seconds, then it's 365 days, so the URL seems to
match the document.

I'm wondering if there is anyone with experience on this topic, before I
put some serious time in with TAC.

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


Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Call Escalation/Tiered CSQs

2019-08-05 Thread Anthony Holloway
Oh I see, a secret door.

A speed dial on the phone would not produce a blind transfer though,
right?  Unless I'm missing something.  The Agent would press transfer, then
the caller goes on network hold, then the Agent presses the speed dial and
waits for all of the digits to be sent (assuming you're using commas as
delay?) and then the Agent must press transfer again to complete the
transfer.

On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 10:35 AM Johnson, Tim  wrote:

> Thanks for the response.
>
>
>
> Yeah, you’re right. I hadn’t thought too deep into how it would affect
> reporting, but splitting into a second application does provide better
> options there. This is the way we’ve done it with another call center that
> we provide service for, but I just wasn’t sure if there was a “better” way.
>
>
>
> With the Get Digit String, I was thinking we could use their “welcome”
> prompt on that step. There would be no indication during the prompt that it
> was available so it would kind of be somewhat of a “hidden” menu. The 1st
> tier agents would be able to call their main line, and press an expected
> digit string that I could apply IF logic to and process the call
> differently. The blind transfer could be handled just by adding a speed
> dial on their phones to include a wait and then the DTMF digits. That being
> said though, the call center is thinking that a phase two of this change
> will be to add a menu for the 1st tier agents to select from to route to
> agents that specialize in different areas.
>
>
>
> *From:* Anthony Holloway 
> *Sent:* Monday, August 5, 2019 10:55 AM
> *To:* Johnson, Tim 
> *Cc:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Call Escalation/Tiered CSQs
>
>
>
> I wouldn't worry too much about cluttering up your scripts (or apps, or
> triggers).
>
>
>
> First and foremost, I would worry about reporting.  Does the solution
> allow the stock reports to adequately meet the needs of the reporting
> personnel?
>
>
>
> Second, I would worry about ease of execution for the Agent.  Are the
> Agents able to easily execute this escalation?
>
>
>
> If I had to pick one of your three options, Option 1 would be my choice.
> This would allow Application level reporting (real-time and historical),
> not just called number and/or CSQ level.
>
>
>
> I didn't quite understand why your Option 3 uses a Get Digit String.  Can
> you explain that?  Also, this option would not allow Agents to take
> advantage of a blind transfer (a speedier option for escalating calls).
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 9:25 AM Johnson, Tim  wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> I’m looking for ideas on how people setup their applications/scripts when
> handling call centers with multiple tiers of support. More specifically,
> how do you handle 1st tier agents queueing calls for 2nd tier agents?
> Below, I’ve provided three ways I can think of to achieve it, but I’m
> curious if someone has a better idea.
>
>
>
>- An application/trigger for each tier. The 1st tier agent transfers
>the call to the trigger for the next tier. Benefit of this being that the
>scripts are broken out and there’s not as much clutter in each.
>- A second trigger on the application, and a Get Call Contact Info
>step to grab the called number and queue the call for 2nd tier CSQ
>based on that. The 1st tier agent would transfer the call two the
>secondary trigger. This makes for a more cluttered script, but you don’t
>have to cross reference anything.
>- A Get Digit String that is used at the “welcome” prompt, which can
>be used by the 1st tier agent when they do a supervised transfer to
>the trigger on the application. This again makes for a more cluttered
>script than doing two applications/triggers, but maybe makes it easier to
>manage and do reporting on?
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Tim Johnson
>
>
>
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> 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%7Ceaf43e44a5414c508f3d08d719b4f9dc%7Cc871bc6e7cc64a57a4eb22309fc34963%7C1%7C0%7C637006137390573766=aiDlHZ1u%2BPfL8QLG7PqgrWXSHYHD%2BaAOWtWRqmNQ8Xw%3D=0>
>
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX Call Escalation/Tiered CSQs

2019-08-05 Thread Anthony Holloway
I wouldn't worry too much about cluttering up your scripts (or apps, or
triggers).

First and foremost, I would worry about reporting.  Does the solution allow
the stock reports to adequately meet the needs of the reporting personnel?

Second, I would worry about ease of execution for the Agent.  Are the
Agents able to easily execute this escalation?

If I had to pick one of your three options, Option 1 would be my choice.
This would allow Application level reporting (real-time and historical),
not just called number and/or CSQ level.

I didn't quite understand why your Option 3 uses a Get Digit String.  Can
you explain that?  Also, this option would not allow Agents to take
advantage of a blind transfer (a speedier option for escalating calls).

On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 9:25 AM Johnson, Tim  wrote:

> Hello,
>
>
>
> I’m looking for ideas on how people setup their applications/scripts when
> handling call centers with multiple tiers of support. More specifically,
> how do you handle 1st tier agents queueing calls for 2nd tier agents?
> Below, I’ve provided three ways I can think of to achieve it, but I’m
> curious if someone has a better idea.
>
>
>
>- An application/trigger for each tier. The 1st tier agent transfers
>the call to the trigger for the next tier. Benefit of this being that the
>scripts are broken out and there’s not as much clutter in each.
>- A second trigger on the application, and a Get Call Contact Info
>step to grab the called number and queue the call for 2nd tier CSQ
>based on that. The 1st tier agent would transfer the call two the
>secondary trigger. This makes for a more cluttered script, but you don’t
>have to cross reference anything.
>- A Get Digit String that is used at the “welcome” prompt, which can
>be used by the 1st tier agent when they do a supervised transfer to
>the trigger on the application. This again makes for a more cluttered
>script than doing two applications/triggers, but maybe makes it easier to
>manage and do reporting on?
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Tim Johnson
>
>
> ___
> 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] PSA: Hunt Groups and Alerting Names

2019-08-01 Thread Anthony Holloway
I tried the double quote trick at first, based on a forum post I saw, but
it didn't work for me.

In the same post, someone posted a sample Lua script, but that also did not
work for me, so I wrote my own.

Post in question:
https://community.cisco.com/t5/unified-communications/hunt-pilot-alerting-name-not-working-in-11-5-su6/td-p/3867489


YMMV.

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 12:09 PM James Buchanan 
wrote:

> You can also put the alerting name in double-quotes and get the same
> result, but I like the LUA script better. I used it a few days ago.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 1 Aug 2019, at 18:05, Jinto Alakkal Kunjumon 
> wrote:
>
> Thanks for sharing this Anthony, cool stuff. I am also sharing a link
> which might be helpful for everyone.
>
>
>
>
> https://community.cisco.com/t5/collaboration-voice-and-video/a-guide-to-sip-normalization-on-cucm-and-lua-scripting/ba-p/3099409
>
>
>
> Jinto.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Anthony
> Holloway
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 01, 2019 12:40 PM
> *To:* Cisco VoIP Group 
> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] PSA: Hunt Groups and Alerting Names
>
>
>
> I was configuring some new stuff for a customer recently, and as I was
> making test calls, I noticed the 7800/8800 series phones were not showing
> the Hunt Pilot Alerting Name like I'm used to.
>
>
>
> I found a defect (CSCvn39109
> <https://bst.cloudapps.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCvn39109>) which
> basically says that CUCM 11.5(1)SU5+ was updated to change the way it
> presents the Hunt Pilot name to the phone, and the phone firmware has not
> been updated to parse it.
>
>
>
> I implemented a SIP Normalization script on the SIP Profile applied to the
> phones, which rolls back the format to pre- CUCM 11.5(1)SU5.
>
>
>
> That Lua script looks like this:
>
>
>
> M = {}
>
>
>
> local function hunt_uri_rollback(msg)
>
>
>
> local old_call_info = msg:getHeader("Call-Info")
>
> local new_call_info = string.gsub(old_call_info,
> "huntpiloturi=\"%%22(.*)%%22(.*)\";", "huntpiloturi=\"%1\"%2;")
>
> msg:modifyHeader("Call-Info", new_call_info)
>
>
>
> end
>
>
>
> M.outbound_INVITE = hunt_uri_rollback
>
> M.outbound_UPDATE = hunt_uri_rollback
>
>
>
> return M
>
>
>
> Again, you apply it to a SIP Profile, which you then apply to the phone.
> Then restart the phone.
>
>
>
> The Pre-Lua script Call-Info header looks like this:
>
>
>
> Call-Info: ; security= Unknown;
> orientation= from; gci= 4-166949; *huntpiloturi="%22Your Hunt Pilot
> Name%22>";* isVoip;
> call-instance= 1
>
>
>
> The Post-Lua script Call-Info header looks like this:
>
>
>
> Call-Info: ; security= Unknown;
> orientation= from; gci= 4-166949; *huntpiloturi="Your Hunt Pilot
> Name">;* isVoip;
> call-instance= 1
>
>
>
> Seeing the alerting name on the phone is a really useful feature in my
> opinion, and so I hope this helps you out until Cisco fixes this with a
> software patch.
>
>
>
> PS Make sure you have the CM Advanced Service Parameter set to True
> (default): Display Hunt Pilot Name or DN for Hunt Group Calls When
> Alerting.
>
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


[cisco-voip] PSA: Hunt Groups and Alerting Names

2019-08-01 Thread Anthony Holloway
I was configuring some new stuff for a customer recently, and as I was
making test calls, I noticed the 7800/8800 series phones were not showing
the Hunt Pilot Alerting Name like I'm used to.



I found a defect (CSCvn39109
) which basically
says that CUCM 11.5(1)SU5+ was updated to change the way it presents the
Hunt Pilot name to the phone, and the phone firmware has not been updated
to parse it.



I implemented a SIP Normalization script on the SIP Profile applied to the
phones, which rolls back the format to pre- CUCM 11.5(1)SU5.



That Lua script looks like this:



M = {}



local function hunt_uri_rollback(msg)



local old_call_info = msg:getHeader("Call-Info")

local new_call_info = string.gsub(old_call_info,
"huntpiloturi=\"%%22(.*)%%22(.*)\";", "huntpiloturi=\"%1\"%2;")

msg:modifyHeader("Call-Info", new_call_info)



end



M.outbound_INVITE = hunt_uri_rollback

M.outbound_UPDATE = hunt_uri_rollback



return M



Again, you apply it to a SIP Profile, which you then apply to the phone.
Then restart the phone.


The Pre-Lua script Call-Info header looks like this:


Call-Info: ; security= Unknown; orientation=
from; gci= 4-166949; *huntpiloturi="%22Your Hunt Pilot
Name%22>";* isVoip;
call-instance= 1


The Post-Lua script Call-Info header looks like this:


Call-Info: ; security= Unknown; orientation=
from; gci= 4-166949; *huntpiloturi="Your Hunt Pilot
Name">;* isVoip;
call-instance= 1


Seeing the alerting name on the phone is a really useful feature in my
opinion, and so I hope this helps you out until Cisco fixes this with a
software patch.


PS Make sure you have the CM Advanced Service Parameter set to True
(default): Display Hunt Pilot Name or DN for Hunt Group Calls When Alerting.
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


Re: [cisco-voip] Unity Connection Mailbox

2019-07-29 Thread Anthony Holloway
That's probably the truth. Cisco should collect statistics from CUCM,
anonymously of course, to better understand how people use the system, and
then publish the results.

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019, 5:21 PM Matthew Loraditch <
mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:

> I get that perspective. I’ve also never gotten that complaint. I wonder in
> general how many folks cfwdall to something besides VM these days. At least
> in our office no one does. They record an OOF vm greeting if anything and
> thats that.
>
> Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
>
>
> Matthew Loraditch​
> Sr. Network Engineer
> p: *443.541.1518* <443.541.1518>
> w: *www.heliontechnologies.com* <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>  |
> e: *mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com* 
> [image: Helion Technologies] <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
> [image: Facebook] <https://facebook.com/heliontech>
> [image: Twitter] <https://twitter.com/heliontech>
> [image: LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
> --
> *From:* Anthony Holloway 
> *Sent:* Monday, July 29, 2019 11:35 AM
> *To:* Matthew Loraditch
> *Cc:* Jason Aarons (Americas); Lelio Fulgenzi; cisco-voip (
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net)
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Unity Connection Mailbox
>
> I would disagree.  If I put myself into the caller's shoes, and I call
> Steve but hear Mark's voicemail, I will think I called the wrong number,
> and likely delete Steve's phone number from my contact list.
>
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 7:41 PM Matthew Loraditch <
> mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:
>
>> It’s funny we ALWAYS use last redirecting.
>>
>>
>>
>> I (and my team) find first redirecting confusing as heck. Last
>> redirecting ensures the VM goes to where we want it. We are most concerned
>> with hunt groups and such and we use CTI route points at the end of any
>> call flow that is intended for VM. In theory we may end up with more hunt
>> lists and such as some items may need to be duplicated, but it’s much
>> easier IMO to manage and troubleshoot.
>>
>>
>>
>> And if individuals are CFwdAlling it’s because they aren’t available so
>> shouldn’t the VM go to the person who is in the office and can handle it?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Matthew Loraditch​
>> Sr. Network Engineer
>> p: *443.541.1518* <443.541.1518>
>> w: *www.heliontechnologies.com* <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>  |
>> e: *mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com*
>> 
>> [image: Helion Technologies] <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
>> [image: Facebook] <https://facebook.com/heliontech>
>> [image: Twitter] <https://twitter.com/heliontech>
>> [image: LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
>>
>> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Jason
>> Aarons (Americas)
>> *Sent:* Friday, July 26, 2019 8:29 PM
>> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi ; cisco-voip (
>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) 
>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Unity Connection Mailbox
>>
>>
>>
>> We implemented that CXN Service Parameter “Last Redirecting Number” and
>> it’s working.
>>
>>
>>
>> Just which something there was a per user solution in CUCM etc.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Lelio Fulgenzi 
>> *Sent:* Friday, July 26, 2019 1:20 PM
>> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi ; Jason Aarons (Americas) <
>> jason.aar...@dimensiondata.com>; cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net)
>> 
>> *Subject:* RE: Unity Connection Mailbox
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ok – I’m _*pretty*_ sure this is what helps:
>>
>>
>>
>>- Connection Admin > Advanced > Conversations
>>- Use Last (Rather than First) Redirecting Number for Routing
>>Incoming Call [ ]
>>
>>
>>
>> “When this check box is checked, Unity Connection uses the last
>> redirecting number for routing incoming calls.”
>>
>>
>>
>> I have not (ever) had a chance to test this.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>>
>> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>>
>> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
>> N1G 2W1
>>
>> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 | le...@uoguelph.ca
>>
>>
>>
>> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>&

Re: [cisco-voip] Unity Connection Mailbox

2019-07-29 Thread Anthony Holloway
I would disagree.  If I put myself into the caller's shoes, and I call
Steve but hear Mark's voicemail, I will think I called the wrong number,
and likely delete Steve's phone number from my contact list.

On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 7:41 PM Matthew Loraditch <
mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:

> It’s funny we ALWAYS use last redirecting.
>
>
>
> I (and my team) find first redirecting confusing as heck. Last redirecting
> ensures the VM goes to where we want it. We are most concerned with hunt
> groups and such and we use CTI route points at the end of any call flow
> that is intended for VM. In theory we may end up with more hunt lists and
> such as some items may need to be duplicated, but it’s much easier IMO to
> manage and troubleshoot.
>
>
>
> And if individuals are CFwdAlling it’s because they aren’t available so
> shouldn’t the VM go to the person who is in the office and can handle it?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Matthew Loraditch​
> Sr. Network Engineer
> p: *443.541.1518* <443.541.1518>
> w: *www.heliontechnologies.com*   |
> e: *mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com* 
> [image: Helion Technologies] 
> [image: Facebook] 
> [image: Twitter] 
> [image: LinkedIn] 
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Jason
> Aarons (Americas)
> *Sent:* Friday, July 26, 2019 8:29 PM
> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi ; cisco-voip (
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) 
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Unity Connection Mailbox
>
>
>
> We implemented that CXN Service Parameter “Last Redirecting Number” and
> it’s working.
>
>
>
> Just which something there was a per user solution in CUCM etc.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Lelio Fulgenzi 
> *Sent:* Friday, July 26, 2019 1:20 PM
> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi ; Jason Aarons (Americas) <
> jason.aar...@dimensiondata.com>; cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) <
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
> *Subject:* RE: Unity Connection Mailbox
>
>
>
>
>
> Ok – I’m _*pretty*_ sure this is what helps:
>
>
>
>- Connection Admin > Advanced > Conversations
>- Use Last (Rather than First) Redirecting Number for Routing Incoming
>Call [ ]
>
>
>
> “When this check box is checked, Unity Connection uses the last
> redirecting number for routing incoming calls.”
>
>
>
> I have not (ever) had a chance to test this.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Lelio
> Fulgenzi
> *Sent:* Friday, July 26, 2019 1:10 PM
> *To:* Jason Aarons (Americas) ;
> cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) 
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Unity Connection Mailbox
>
>
>
> There used to be a system wide settings on Unity Connection where you
> could decide to either send it to the originating mailbox. Not sure if it
> was available in the admin GUI or it needed a cisco unity monkey tool to do
> it.
>
>
>
> Will spend a few minutes looking…
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Jason
> Aarons (Americas)
> *Sent:* Friday, July 26, 2019 12:43 PM
> *To:* cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) 
> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] Unity Connection Mailbox
>
>
>
>
>
> Jack on PSTN  >   Diane ext 4001  >>   Bobbie ext 4002
>
>
>
> If Jack calls Diane and Diane has call forward all to Bobbie, is there a
> way for Jack to hear Bobbie’s voicemail and not Diane’s?
>
>
>
> TAC said no.  Ask the expert at Cisco Live said no.  is the answer really
> no?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This email and all contents are subject to the following disclaimer:
> "http://www.dimensiondata.com/emaildisclaimer;
> 
>
>
>
> itevomcid
> ___
> 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] CUCM 12.5 Regions > Max Session Bit Rate for Video vs Immersive Video

2019-07-24 Thread Anthony Holloway
According to the SRND:

*For TelePresence endpoints there is a non-configurable Video Call Traffic
Class of immersive assigned to the endpoint. A SIP trunk can be classified
as desktop, immersive, or mixed video in order to deduct bandwidth
reservations of a SIP trunk call. All other endpoints and trunks have a
non-configurable Video Call Traffic Class of desktop video.  *

Source: CUCM SRND 11.x
<https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/srnd/collab11/collab11/cac.html#pgfId-1489910>

So, as you can see, this SIP Profile setting is for SIP Trunks only.  It's
kind of like how Device Pools have some settings for phones, and some
settings for Gateways/Trunks, and the UI doesn't hide
applicable/non-applicable settings depending on how/where you assigned it.

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 11:08 PM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:

>
>
> What testing did you do? Just curious. Do we know what “immersive video
> support” actually means? Does it mean you need to be talking to an actual
> IX device to get the support?
>
>
>
> Also – I noticed this. Is your SIP profile set up with Immersive?
>
>
>
>
>
> P.S. I have _*no*_ idea what I’m talking about. These are just guesses.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Jason
> Aarons (Americas)
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 23, 2019 10:29 PM
> *To:* Anthony Holloway 
> *Cc:* cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) 
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 12.5 Regions > Max Session Bit Rate for
> Video vs Immersive Video
>
>
>
> Here is the report, but testing confirmed a Cisco WebEx Room 55 is not an
> Immersive Video endpoint.  Sort of opposite of what below indicates.
>
>
>
>
>
> Jason Aarons, CCIEx2 No. 38564, MCSE: Communications
>
> Advanced Technical Consultant
>
> Dimension Data
>
> M: +1-904-338-3245 mobile/whatsApp
>
> T: +1-954-517-2033 office/Miramar
>
> x62033 Miramar
>
> Call My Video Unit 62...@rccl.com
>
>
>
> *Together we do great things.*
>
> Dimension Data has joined 28 expert companies to become NTT.
>
> Our transition to the NTT brand will be complete soon. Visit us at
> hello.global.ntt
> <https://hello.global.ntt/?elqTrackId=3F7027E56EB15D03DBADE8E3418458AD=a39c94d982094528a3908202d287fc13=5286=1=2994>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Anthony Holloway 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 23, 2019 11:35 AM
> *To:* Jason Aarons (Americas) 
> *Cc:* cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) 
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 12.5 Regions > Max Session Bit Rate for
> Video vs Immersive Video
>
>
>
> I agree that the name isn't as useful anymore, but did you run the
> report?  If so, do you feel the report is accurate, or are you noticing
> something is wrong with it?
>
>
>
> Also, you didn't mention if you switched your Service Param over or not,
> else, everything uses non-immersive video by default.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:11 PM Jason Aarons (Americas) <
> jason.aar...@dimensiondata.com> wrote:
>
> I can’t recall a new product from the Oslo team that said Telepresence
> it.   The last products where Cisco TelePresence DX70, Cisco Telepresence
> MX200 G2 etc.  The larger 3 panel half table conference room we all
> identify as Telepresence blah.
>
>
>
> New huddle space products customers like are the Cisco Webex Board 55,
> Cisco Webex Room 55/70.  Based on testing these WebEx Room blah are no
> longer Immersive Video (on right in Regions) but just video endpoints
> similar to a 8845/8865.
>
>
>
> Guess I was going by the video screen size.  Big meant Telepresence.
> Struggle was TAC SE didn’t know what Immersive Video vs Video was.  The
> CCIE Collab lab is pretty clear the 8845/65 are just video as you have
> tasks related to regions.
>
>
>
> *From:* Anthony Holloway 
> *Sent:* Monday, July 22, 2019 10:22 AM
> *To:* Jason Aarons (Americas) 
> *Cc:* cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) 
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 12.5 Regions > Max Session Bit Rate for
> Video vs Immersive Video
>
>
>
>
>
> Did you already change the value of Service Parameter: Use Video
> BandwidthPool for Immersive Video Calls?
>
>
>
> The classification is per version of CUCM, and thus can be queried in
> C

Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 12.5 Regions > Max Session Bit Rate for Video vs Immersive Video

2019-07-24 Thread Anthony Holloway
On the surface it would seem as though the list is a liar, but I still
don't think you've answered my question on whether or not you've enabled
the use of the immersive pool.

What is your CallManager Service Parameter for Use Video BandwidthPool for
Immersive Video Calls set to?  The default is to not use the immersive
configuration, which could explain why you're noticing certain devices not
using immersive that you would otherwise think would.

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 9:28 PM Jason Aarons (Americas) <
jason.aar...@dimensiondata.com> wrote:

> Here is the report, but testing confirmed a Cisco WebEx Room 55 is not an
> Immersive Video endpoint.  Sort of opposite of what below indicates.
>
>
>
>
>
> Jason Aarons, CCIEx2 No. 38564, MCSE: Communications
>
> Advanced Technical Consultant
>
> Dimension Data
>
> M: +1-904-338-3245 mobile/whatsApp
>
> T: +1-954-517-2033 office/Miramar
>
> x62033 Miramar
>
> Call My Video Unit 62...@rccl.com
>
>
>
> *Together we do great things.*
>
> Dimension Data has joined 28 expert companies to become NTT.
>
> Our transition to the NTT brand will be complete soon. Visit us at
> hello.global.ntt
> <https://hello.global.ntt/?elqTrackId=3F7027E56EB15D03DBADE8E3418458AD=a39c94d982094528a3908202d287fc13=5286=1=2994>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Anthony Holloway 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 23, 2019 11:35 AM
> *To:* Jason Aarons (Americas) 
> *Cc:* cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) 
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 12.5 Regions > Max Session Bit Rate for
> Video vs Immersive Video
>
>
>
> I agree that the name isn't as useful anymore, but did you run the
> report?  If so, do you feel the report is accurate, or are you noticing
> something is wrong with it?
>
>
>
> Also, you didn't mention if you switched your Service Param over or not,
> else, everything uses non-immersive video by default.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:11 PM Jason Aarons (Americas) <
> jason.aar...@dimensiondata.com> wrote:
>
> I can’t recall a new product from the Oslo team that said Telepresence
> it.   The last products where Cisco TelePresence DX70, Cisco Telepresence
> MX200 G2 etc.  The larger 3 panel half table conference room we all
> identify as Telepresence blah.
>
>
>
> New huddle space products customers like are the Cisco Webex Board 55,
> Cisco Webex Room 55/70.  Based on testing these WebEx Room blah are no
> longer Immersive Video (on right in Regions) but just video endpoints
> similar to a 8845/8865.
>
>
>
> Guess I was going by the video screen size.  Big meant Telepresence.
> Struggle was TAC SE didn’t know what Immersive Video vs Video was.  The
> CCIE Collab lab is pretty clear the 8845/65 are just video as you have
> tasks related to regions.
>
>
>
> *From:* Anthony Holloway 
> *Sent:* Monday, July 22, 2019 10:22 AM
> *To:* Jason Aarons (Americas) 
> *Cc:* cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) 
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 12.5 Regions > Max Session Bit Rate for
> Video vs Immersive Video
>
>
>
>
>
> Did you already change the value of Service Parameter: Use Video
> BandwidthPool for Immersive Video Calls?
>
>
>
> The classification is per version of CUCM, and thus can be queried in
> CUCM.  See below from SRND.
>
>
>
> *Endpoint Classification*
> Cisco TelePresence endpoints have a fixed non-configurable Video Call
> Traffic Class of immersive and are identified by Unified CM as *immersive*.
> Telepresence endpoints are defined in Unified CM by the device type. When a
> device is added in Unified CM, any device with TelePresence in the name of
> the device type is classified as *immersive*, as are the generic
> single-screen and multi-screen room systems. Another way to check the
> capabilities of the endpoints in the Unified CM is to go to the *Cisco
> Unified Reporting Tool > System Reports > Unified CM Phone Feature List*.
> In the feature drop down list, select *Immersive Video Support for
> TelePresence Devices* ; in the product drop down list, select *All*. This
> will display all of the device types that are classified as *immersive*.
> All other endpoints have a fixed Video Call Traffic Class of *desktop*
> due to their lack of the non-configurable *immersive *attribute.
>
>
>
> Source: CUCM 11.x SRND
> <https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/srnd/collab11/collab11/cac.html#pgfId-1489913>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 6:51 PM Jason Aarons (Americas) <
> jason.aar...@dimensiondata.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Where is there a definitive list of what is Immersive?  Is a Room 55
> Immersive?

Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 12.5 Regions > Max Session Bit Rate for Video vs Immersive Video

2019-07-23 Thread Anthony Holloway
I agree that the name isn't as useful anymore, but did you run the report?
If so, do you feel the report is accurate, or are you noticing something is
wrong with it?

Also, you didn't mention if you switched your Service Param over or not,
else, everything uses non-immersive video by default.

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:11 PM Jason Aarons (Americas) <
jason.aar...@dimensiondata.com> wrote:

> I can’t recall a new product from the Oslo team that said Telepresence
> it.   The last products where Cisco TelePresence DX70, Cisco Telepresence
> MX200 G2 etc.  The larger 3 panel half table conference room we all
> identify as Telepresence blah.
>
>
>
> New huddle space products customers like are the Cisco Webex Board 55,
> Cisco Webex Room 55/70.  Based on testing these WebEx Room blah are no
> longer Immersive Video (on right in Regions) but just video endpoints
> similar to a 8845/8865.
>
>
>
> Guess I was going by the video screen size.  Big meant Telepresence.
> Struggle was TAC SE didn’t know what Immersive Video vs Video was.  The
> CCIE Collab lab is pretty clear the 8845/65 are just video as you have
> tasks related to regions.
>
>
>
> *From:* Anthony Holloway 
> *Sent:* Monday, July 22, 2019 10:22 AM
> *To:* Jason Aarons (Americas) 
> *Cc:* cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) 
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 12.5 Regions > Max Session Bit Rate for
> Video vs Immersive Video
>
>
>
>
>
> Did you already change the value of Service Parameter: Use Video
> BandwidthPool for Immersive Video Calls?
>
>
>
> The classification is per version of CUCM, and thus can be queried in
> CUCM.  See below from SRND.
>
>
>
> *Endpoint Classification*
> Cisco TelePresence endpoints have a fixed non-configurable Video Call
> Traffic Class of immersive and are identified by Unified CM as *immersive*.
> Telepresence endpoints are defined in Unified CM by the device type. When a
> device is added in Unified CM, any device with TelePresence in the name of
> the device type is classified as *immersive*, as are the generic
> single-screen and multi-screen room systems. Another way to check the
> capabilities of the endpoints in the Unified CM is to go to the *Cisco
> Unified Reporting Tool > System Reports > Unified CM Phone Feature List*.
> In the feature drop down list, select *Immersive Video Support for
> TelePresence Devices* ; in the product drop down list, select *All*. This
> will display all of the device types that are classified as *immersive*.
> All other endpoints have a fixed Video Call Traffic Class of *desktop*
> due to their lack of the non-configurable *immersive *attribute.
>
>
>
> Source: CUCM 11.x SRND
> <https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/srnd/collab11/collab11/cac.html#pgfId-1489913>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 6:51 PM Jason Aarons (Americas) <
> jason.aar...@dimensiondata.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Where is there a definitive list of what is Immersive?  Is a Room 55
> Immersive?
>
>
>
> From my training the left is 88xx video and right were products formerly
> made by Tandberg such as Room 55/DX80/SX80/MX300 etc
>
>
>
> In a Room 55 trying to figure out if it is left or right side.
>
>
>
>
>
> -jason
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This email and all contents are subject to the following disclaimer:
> "http://www.dimensiondata.com/emaildisclaimer;
> <http://www.dimensiondata.com/Global/Policies/Pages/Email-Disclaimer.aspx>
>
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
>
> itevomcid
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 12.5 Regions > Max Session Bit Rate for Video vs Immersive Video

2019-07-22 Thread Anthony Holloway
Did you already change the value of Service Parameter: Use Video
BandwidthPool for Immersive Video Calls?

The classification is per version of CUCM, and thus can be queried in
CUCM.  See below from SRND.

*Endpoint Classification*
Cisco TelePresence endpoints have a fixed non-configurable Video Call
Traffic Class of immersive and are identified by Unified CM as *immersive*.
Telepresence endpoints are defined in Unified CM by the device type. When a
device is added in Unified CM, any device with TelePresence in the name of
the device type is classified as *immersive*, as are the generic
single-screen and multi-screen room systems. Another way to check the
capabilities of the endpoints in the Unified CM is to go to the *Cisco
Unified Reporting Tool > System Reports > Unified CM Phone Feature List*.
In the feature drop down list, select *Immersive Video Support for
TelePresence Devices* ; in the product drop down list, select *All*. This
will display all of the device types that are classified as *immersive*.
All other endpoints have a fixed Video Call Traffic Class of *desktop* due
to their lack of the non-configurable *immersive *attribute.

Source: CUCM 11.x SRND


On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 6:51 PM Jason Aarons (Americas) <
jason.aar...@dimensiondata.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Where is there a definitive list of what is Immersive?  Is a Room 55
> Immersive?
>
>
>
> From my training the left is 88xx video and right were products formerly
> made by Tandberg such as Room 55/DX80/SX80/MX300 etc
>
>
>
> In a Room 55 trying to figure out if it is left or right side.
>
>
>
>
>
> -jason
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This email and all contents are subject to the following disclaimer:
> "http://www.dimensiondata.com/emaildisclaimer;
> 
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


Re: [cisco-voip] cool tool - visualping.io

2019-07-12 Thread Anthony Holloway
Instruction unclear
Entered https://www.usdebtclock.org/ and now my phone wont stop dinging

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 2:54 PM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:

>
> I found this neat tool I wanted to share.
>
> https://visualping.io
>
> It allows you to enter a web page and then scan it as an image, text or
> web(?) and establish a baseline. Then you can ask it to check periodically
> and report back changes.
>
> A free account gives you up to 62 checks in a month.
>
> I'm planning on using it to monitor Cisco (wiki) pages that I'm using as a
> basis for upcoming maintenance or other activities. Or for ones that I need
> monitored because they communicate other information.
>
> Anyways, there you go.
>
> Happy Friday.
>
>
> ---
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A. | Senior Analyst
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram,
> Twitter and Facebook
>
> [University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


Re: [cisco-voip] Cisco Jabber / Outlook Presence Status

2019-07-12 Thread Anthony Holloway
Your own name is on my top ten list, Lelio Fulgenzi!

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 8:49 AM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:

> Ah – good article.
>
>
>
> And even _*better*_ name! Bruno Van Turnhout is on my top ten list now.
>
>
>
> ---
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
>
>
> *From:* Brian Meade 
> *Sent:* Friday, July 12, 2019 9:41 AM
> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi 
> *Cc:* James Dust ;
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Cisco Jabber / Outlook Presence Status
>
>
>
> Also make sure proxyAddresses are set correctly for the users-
> https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/voice-unified-communications/jabber-windows/116152-problemsolution-product-00.html
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 8:23 AM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
>
>
>
> This might have something to do with how default protocol handlers are
> configured.
>
>
>
> From my reading, default protocol handlers are switched every time
> software is installed.
>
>
>
> So, if someone installs Skype (for Business) _after_ you’ve installed
> Jabber, Outlook looks to Skype for presence information.
>
>
>
> Take a look here for details on how to check.
>
>
>
>
> https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/jabber/12_0/cjab_b_on-premises-deployment-for-cisco-jabber-12/cjab_b_on-premises-deployment-for-cisco-jabber-12_chapter_010011.html
>
> *-sent from mobile device-*
>
>
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 <519-824-4120;56354> | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 12, 2019, at 7:01 AM, James Dust 
> wrote:
>
> Morning all,
>
>
>
> I have an issue whereby some of our users Jabber presence integration
> works fine in Outlook, but others are greyed out with no apparent
> difference in configuraiotn.
>
>
>
> I found the following document, which we have checked and hasn’t helped:
>
>
>
>
> https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/unified-communications/jabber-windows/118750-technote-jabber-00.html
>
>
>
> Has anyone else experienced this problem?
>
>
>
> 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
>
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


Re: [cisco-voip] room kits - smartnet or not?

2019-07-11 Thread Anthony Holloway
Don't you require active smartnet in order to download software for video
endpoints?  I mean, I suppose if you're gambling on the hardware working
for that long, you could also gamble on the software to last that long too.

On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 10:02 AM Charles Goldsmith  wrote:

> Phones are relatively inexpensive, I advise people to buy spares in case
> of issues vs smartnet on every phone for large installs.  Small installs,
> it's a good peace of mind.
>
> Video units are expensive, so you are gambling that nothing is going to go
> wrong.  In 2 years if something does go out on one, you have to buy another
> one.  That's a business decision and I just present the facts to the bean
> counters and let them make it and take the heat :)
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 8:37 AM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
>
>>
>> I remember when phones first came out, smartnet was expensive for each
>> phone and the decision by many was made to leave smart net off the phones
>> and use that money to replace phones as needed. Budget issues aside, it
>> made sense.
>>
>> What are people doing for equipment of a smaller number? Say, Room Kits?
>>
>> I'd like to offer the products to our clients with a 5 year warranty, so
>> no one has to worry about managing inventory until it's probably time to
>> replace them. But 5 year warranty is about half the cost of the product.
>> Doing math that says these devices will be EOL'ed within about 10 years of
>> announcement (very rough guess), two 5 year warranties buys a new product.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A. | Senior Analyst
>> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
>> N1G 2W1
>> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 | le...@uoguelph.ca
>>
>> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram,
>> Twitter and Facebook
>>
>> [University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>>
>> ___
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


Re: [cisco-voip] SSO and uccx phone agent

2019-06-27 Thread Anthony Holloway
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 12:10 PM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:

>
> It’s a deal!
>
> *-sent from mobile device-*
>
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 <519-824-4120;56354> | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
> On Jun 27, 2019, at 8:04 AM, Matthew Loraditch <
> mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:
>
> One Dutch Pancake please.
>
>
>
> Matthew Loraditch​
> Sr. Network Engineer
> p: *443.541.1518* <443.541.1518>
> w: *www.heliontechnologies.com*   |
> e: *mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com* 
>  
>  
>  
>  
>
> *From:* Lelio Fulgenzi 
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 27, 2019 8:02 AM
> *To:* Matthew Loraditch 
> *Cc:* cisco-voip voyp list 
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] SSO and uccx phone agent
>
>
>
>
>
> Fabulous! Thanks again! I owe you a breakfast. ;)
>
>
>
>
>
> *-sent from mobile device-*
>
>
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 <519-824-4120;56354> | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
>
> On Jun 27, 2019, at 7:48 AM, Matthew Loraditch <
> mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:
>
> I’m on 12.5 in this screenshot (hence my os admin has it too), but you
> just have to click that link and then you get a special page where you use
> the local user instead of your ldap/sso admin.
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
> *Matthew Loraditch**​*
>
> *Sr. Network Engineer*
>
> p: *443.541.1518* <443.541.1518>
>
> w: *www.heliontechnologies.com* 
>
>  |
>
> e: *mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com* 
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:* Lelio Fulgenzi 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 26, 2019 11:21 PM
> *To:* Matthew Loraditch 
> *Cc:* cisco-voip voyp list 
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] SSO and uccx phone agent
>
>
>
>
>
> So... if I want to use the local admin user, does it flip to the regular
> login page after you enter the local userID?
>
>
>
> *-sent from mobile device-*
>
>
>
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 <519-824-4120;56354> | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
>
> On Jun 26, 2019, at 10:56 PM, Matthew Loraditch <
> mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:
>
> If you use SSO Application Admin uses SSO
>
> OS Admin doesn’t until 12.0 and still optional.
>
> You can bypass for both of them and use the old creds, or you can also
> disable said bypass access for security reasons.
>
>
>
> CCX doesn’t have SSO until 11.5 so that’s not even a consideration in your
> environment. Albeit once you went there then it’d be same as above.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Matthew Loraditch**​*
>
> *Sr. Network Engineer*
>
> p: *443.541.1518* <443.541.1518>
>
> w: *www.heliontechnologies.com* 
>
>  |
>
> e: *mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com* 
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:* Lelio Fulgenzi 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 26, 2019 10:50 PM
> *To:* Matthew Loraditch 
> *Cc:* cisco-voip voyp list 
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] SSO and uccx phone agent
>
>
>
> Are admin pages still using ldap Auth? Not SSO?
>
>
>
> *-sent from mobile device-*
>
>
>
>
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 <519-824-4120;56354> | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
>
> On Jun 26, 2019, at 10:45 PM, Matthew Loraditch <
> mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:
>
> SSO doesn’t apply to phone agents. But If you have SSO you should be ldap
> integrated with auth enabled so 

Re: [cisco-voip] CallManager Route Pattern Regular Expression Calculator

2019-06-10 Thread Anthony Holloway
I know this is a little old, but I wanted to follow up nonetheless.

I am working on a web based tool which helps with summarizing number
patterns for CUCM.

http://avholloway.com/

Right now, the only thing it does is summarize your patterns, but I would
like to include the following features soon:

- Accept ranges like 1000 - 1
- Explode your summarized patterns E.g., 100X -> 1000, 1001, 1002, etc.
- Support + prefixes
- Support variable length patterns (right now all of the patterns you
submit need to be the same length)

If you are worried at all about submitting telephone numbers to my site,
you'll be happy to know, and you can verify yourself, that no data is sent
to the server.  It's all processed locally via javascript in your browser.

On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 3:28 PM Jason Aarons (Americas) <
jason.aar...@dimensiondata.com> wrote:

>
>
> I am looking for a CallManager route pattern generator.  In these days of
> automation I’m not finding one online.
>
>
>
> For example in Skype you can input the starting number 7040  and ending
> number 7539 and get back ^(7(04\d|0[5-9]\d|[1-4]\d\d|5[0-2]\d|53\d))$ and
> import your whole dialplan via online tools;
>
> https://www.ucdialplans.com/
>
>
>
> Is there not a similar tool for CUCM to input Route Patterns?
>
>
>
> -jason
>
>
>
>
> This email and all contents are subject to the following disclaimer:
> "http://www.dimensiondata.com/emaildisclaimer;
> 
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


Re: [cisco-voip] for those upgrading to 12.5 and use BIB

2019-05-24 Thread Anthony Holloway
Wowza!  That's not good.  Thanks for the heads up.

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 9:13 AM Scott Voll  wrote:

> For those that are upgrading to CM 12.5 and use call Recording with BIB,
> just wanted give you a heads up on a Bug
> https://bst.cloudapps.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCvo36582/?rfs=iqvred
>
> Dumps the CM process.  you lose most of all registrations (phones and
> gateways) when it core dumps and restarts the CM process. Looks like there
> is an upgrade waiting on TAC to get us the patch / upgrade.  since we
> were only 4 days post Upgrade, Just wanted to give others a heads up.
>
> Scott
>
> ___
> 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] Cisco Live CLUS anyone??

2019-05-23 Thread Anthony Holloway
Space created.  Name: cisco-voip Members at CLUS 2019.

Ryan, it said it couldn't find you by email.  I also couldn't locate you by
first name/last name either.  (maybe I'm just a tard?)

Mr. Slow, did you want to be in the space too?

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 3:29 PM Matthew Loraditch <
mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:

> Please add me!
>
> Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
>
> Matthew Loraditch​
> Sr. Network Engineer
> p: *443.541.1518* <443.541.1518>
> w: *www.heliontechnologies.com* <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>  |
> e: *mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com* 
> [image: Helion Technologies] <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>
> [image: Facebook] <https://facebook.com/heliontech>
> [image: Twitter] <https://twitter.com/heliontech>
> [image: LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>
> --
> *From:* cisco-voip  on behalf of
> Edgar Salazar 
> *Sent:* Friday, May 24, 2019 6:24:55 AM
> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi
> *Cc:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Cisco Live CLUS anyone??
>
> I'd like to be part of the space as well please:  ed...@variphy.com
> [image: Variphy, Inc. Logo] <http://goo.gl/gmp1xY>
> Edgar Salazar · Consulting Systems Engineer
> Variphy, Inc. <http://goo.gl/gmp1xY> *·* "Trust but Variphy"
> t.(832)VARIPHY (832-827-4749) <+1-832-827-4749>
> e.ed...@variphy.com
> [image: LinkedIn] <https://goo.gl/p1VeF6>[image: Twitter]
> <https://goo.gl/Kvwvnn>[image: Google+] <https://goo.gl/DkuXKD>[image:
> Variphy Support] <http://goo.gl/5x0Ccs>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 2:54 PM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
>
>> Please add me to the space.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>>
>> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>>
>> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
>> N1G 2W1
>>
>> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 | le...@uoguelph.ca
>>
>>
>>
>> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Ryan
>> Huff
>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 23, 2019 2:16 PM
>> *To:* Peter Slow 
>> *Cc:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Cisco Live CLUS anyone??
>>
>>
>>
>> rh...@byteworks.com, if any hard chargers are in the process of setting
>> up a space...
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>> On May 23, 2019, at 14:13, Peter Slow  wrote:
>>
>> I want some Cheetos! I’ll be there!
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:12 Ryan Huff  wrote:
>>
>> I’m out here eating Cheetos with you. Let’s do a team’s space...
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>> On May 23, 2019, at 14:01, Anthony Holloway <
>> avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> We're a little over two weeks away from CLUS.  Ryan were you a fan of the
>> Webex Teams space for us?  Or is this one of those Rounders moments, where
>> everyone else is in the space right now, and I'm on the outside wondering
>> if it even exists?  :(
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 11:15 AM Anthony Holloway <
>> avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> By "green body paint," I hope you meant Hulk, because I already called
>> dibs on cosplaying as Gamora.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 10:53 AM Jason Aarons (Americas) <
>> jason.aar...@dimensiondata.com> wrote:
>>
>> So which Avenger character are you going to be?  We fully expect you to
>> dress up in character.  How do you look wearing green body paint?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of 
>> *Stephen
>> Welsh
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 30, 2019 2:35 AM
>> *To:* Anthony Holloway 
>> *Cc:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Cisco Live CLUS anyone??
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I’ll be there too.
>>
>>
>>
>> The WebEx room was fun and helpful, another would be great.
>>
>>
>>
>> We will have a stand again
>>
>>
>>
>> Stephen Welsh
>>
>> Founder & CTO
>>
>> UnifiedFX
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>> On 29 Apr 2019, at 20:39, Anthony Hollow

Re: [cisco-voip] Cisco Live CLUS anyone??

2019-05-23 Thread Anthony Holloway
We're a little over two weeks away from CLUS.  Ryan were you a fan of the
Webex Teams space for us?  Or is this one of those Rounders moments, where
everyone else is in the space right now, and I'm on the outside wondering
if it even exists?  :(

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 11:15 AM Anthony Holloway <
avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:

> By "green body paint," I hope you meant Hulk, because I already called
> dibs on cosplaying as Gamora.
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 10:53 AM Jason Aarons (Americas) <
> jason.aar...@dimensiondata.com> wrote:
>
>> So which Avenger character are you going to be?  We fully expect you to
>> dress up in character.  How do you look wearing green body paint?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of 
>> *Stephen
>> Welsh
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 30, 2019 2:35 AM
>> *To:* Anthony Holloway 
>> *Cc:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Cisco Live CLUS anyone??
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I’ll be there too.
>>
>>
>>
>> The WebEx room was fun and helpful, another would be great.
>>
>>
>>
>> We will have a stand again
>>
>>
>>
>> Stephen Welsh
>>
>> Founder & CTO
>>
>> UnifiedFX
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>> On 29 Apr 2019, at 20:39, Anthony Holloway <
>> avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'll be there!
>>
>>
>>
>> Last year, I started a webex teams room for those of us who were in
>> attendance (and wanted to be in the room).  A few of us used it to
>> coordinate meetups.  There was also some good conversation in the room
>> during the week as well.  Mostly, heads-ups on events, humor and commentary
>> on what was being learned that week.
>>
>>
>>
>> I might even been in the Engineering Deathmatch again, as a defending
>> champ.  I hope to god they don't put me up against you Ryan.  Fingers
>> crossed.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 2:19 PM Ryan Huff  wrote:
>>
>> Just curious to know whom (if anyone) from the list will be at CLUS this
>> year in San Diego? I will be and would love to meetup with those from the
>> list whom I’ve only exchanged emails with thus far.
>> ___
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> itevomcid
>> ___
>> 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] FN 70379 - reboot issues

2019-05-20 Thread Anthony Holloway
Well ok then.  I guess it's Monday morning and it's time to get to work.
We collectively have a lot of work to do now.

On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 1:24 PM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:

>
> Ok. I’m 99% sure that this FN said upgrade to SU5 or later when I first
> read it. So it would seem that the update to the FN was to add SU5 to the
> affected products. So it’s SU6 or bust.
>
> https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/field-notices/703/fn70379.html
>
> *-sent from mobile device-*
>
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 <519-824-4120;56354> | le...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
> ___
> 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] Call flow for device registered to Hybrid Cloud via local PSTN

2019-05-16 Thread Anthony Holloway
"... this stuff is soo fluid right now, it’s a contradictory mess..."

This bothers me to an unhealthy degree.  I really need to meditate or
something.

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 9:39 PM Ryan Huff  wrote:

> Yup, this stuff is soo fluid right now, it’s a contradictory mess .
> The on-prem registration, IMHO, is rrr from prime time (as you even
> noted, “preview mode”). I honestly think it’s a bit further out than what
> the marketing department would have us believe too ;).
>
> Hopefully though, one day, we’ll all have this unified unicorn they’re
> promising... Jeams?... Jams? ... who knows 
>
> Tops to you mate!
>
> On May 15, 2019, at 22:31, Tim Smith  wrote:
>
> Hi Ryan,
>
>
>
> Yeah sorry, I realise you guys were talking WebEx Hybrid Call (formally
> Spark Hybrid).
>
>
>
> Just pointing out there is some new stuff on horizon. Calling from WebEx
> Teams via CUCM feature.
>
>
> https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cloudCollaboration/wbxt/ucmcalling/unified-cm-wbx-teams-deployment-guide/unified-cm-wbx-teams-deployment-guide_chapter_011.html
> 
>
>
>
> It looks like this will replace the calling from Teams part of the old
> Hybrid Call (although not on mobile clients yet) – in fact it seems you
> have to remove their old Hybrid config to make them work.
>
>
>
> Looks like you’d still need to retain Hybrid Call for cloud registered
> devices.
>
>
>
> There was one specific annoyance with the Hybrid Call from the apps, and I
> can’t find it in my Teams search ☹
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Tim
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Ryan Huff 
> *Date: *Thursday, 16 May 2019 at 12:14 pm
> *To: *Tim Smith 
> *Cc: *Jonathan Charles , "cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" <
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
> *Subject: *Re: [cisco-voip] Call flow for device registered to Hybrid
> Cloud via local PSTN
>
>
>
> This is Webex Hybrid Calling (which was formerly Spark Hybrid calling).
> Whether you configure for cloud registered codec devices, or Webex Teams
> clients, both use cases use the same configuration path / scenario to
> enable PSTN call via CUCM.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On May 15, 2019, at 22:08, Tim Smith  wrote:
>
> Hey guys,
>
>
>
> I think this one has changed a little.
>
> We did “Spark hybrid calling” for one customer with the Spark RD devices
> in CUCM
>
> Honestly, the experience was a little confusing.
>
>
>
> I think the new direction is going to be the WebEx Calling via CUCM (it’s
> in preview mode still)
>
> *https://help.webex.com/en-us/n15ylys/Explore-Calling-in-Cisco-Webex-Teams-Unified-CM
> *
>
>
>
> It’s not parity with the Hybrid Calling yet. (i.e. I think it’s only
> desktop)
>
> Either way, I’d check out all the details first.
>
>
>
> If you are not already on there, make sure you are on the Fabian bot in
> WebEx teams. (Not sure if it’s partners only)
>
> These hybrid features are really starting to rock and roll now.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> *From: *cisco-voip  on behalf of
> Jonathan Charles 
> *Date: *Thursday, 16 May 2019 at 9:30 am
> *To: *Ryan Huff 
> *Cc: *"cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" 
> *Subject: *Re: [cisco-voip] Call flow for device registered to Hybrid
> Cloud via local PSTN
>
>
>
> Thanks!... looks like I have some more reading to do... so how does it
> prevent anyone from sending a pstn number to my expressway? How does it
> authenticate the Webex devices to pass calls to CUCM for?
>
>
>
> Customer has enterprise licensing, so they should be able to do whatever
> they want...
>
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 6:16 PM Ryan Huff  wrote:
>
> You’ll need a specific Webex DNS zone and the traversal trunk really just
> needs to support pre-loaded route headers and SIP parameter preservation
> (those are the most significant differences over the traversal / neighbor
> zone you might have setup for B2B).
>
>
>
> It’s a simple enough configuration, but there are a few more moving parts
> than what the marketing may lead one to believe. Here is the configuration
> documentation:
> https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cloudCollaboration/spark/hybridservices/callservices/cmgt_b_ciscospark-hybrid-call-service-config-guide.html
> 

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

2019-05-15 Thread Anthony Holloway
That.  Can't.  Be.  True.  Right?  If so, Brian Meade has been wasting his
time with UltraISO.

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 1:26 PM Evgeny Izetov  wrote:

> That's good to know. Was it 12.x or 11.x?
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 2:19 PM Haas, Neal 
> wrote:
>
>> I had a TAC Call last week, they told me to add BOOTABLE to the name (in
>> front) and that was it. They said all ISO’s are now bootable with the name
>> change…..
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Evgeny
>> Izetov
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 15, 2019 11:17 AM
>> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi 
>> *Cc:* voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) <
>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?
>>
>>
>>
>> Yeah, CUPS has always been bootable.. CUCM/CUC/CER are still not
>>
>>
>>
>> So, what is the proper way to obtaining bootable iso's now? Let's say a
>> CUCM 11.5 SU6 needs to be reinstalled, and there's no bootable because it
>> was upgraded from an earlier SU. PUT does not have bootable SU6 and neither
>> does Enterprise Agreement. Is TAC the only way to get the bootable for a
>> specific SU? I believe there used to be a time when everyone was advised
>> that TAC is not able to provide bootables?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:18 PM Lelio Fulgenzi 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Same with CUPS if I’m not mistaken.
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>>
>> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>>
>> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
>> N1G 2W1
>>
>> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 | le...@uoguelph.ca
>>
>>
>>
>> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs
>> 
>> | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of 
>> *Charles
>> Goldsmith
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 15, 2019 12:09 PM
>> *To:* Evgeny Izetov 
>> *Cc:* voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net) <
>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] PUT Tool Bootables - what version?
>>
>>
>>
>> Plus, UCCX is shipping bootables (filename doesn't reflect it).
>>
>>
>>
>> Description :
>>
>> UCCX 12.0(1) image for fresh install and upgrades.
>>
>> UCSInstall_UCCX_12_0_1_UCOS_12.0.1.1-24.sgn.iso
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 11:04 AM Evgeny Izetov  wrote:
>>
>> Wasn't their excuse with not providing bootables that it was based on Red
>> Hat? It's CentOS now, and still a struggle..
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 11:52 AM Brian Meade  wrote:
>>
>> I've given up on trying to get bootables.  I haven't had any issues with
>> ones made with UltraISO.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 11:39 AM Lelio Fulgenzi 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Just wondering what the Put Tool Bootables are at now? We're planning on
>> upgrading to v11.5.1 SU6 due to the field notice and I'd like to have the
>> bootable available.
>>
>> Otherwise it's opening a case with the TAC, etc.
>>
>> Is it just a matter of submit request and check the filename?
>>
>> Lelio
>>
>> ---
>> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A. | Senior Analyst
>> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
>> N1G 2W1
>> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 | le...@uoguelph.ca
>>
>> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs
>> 
>> > >
>> | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>>
>> [University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>>
>> ___
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>> 
>>
>> ___
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>> 

Re: [cisco-voip] Unity Connection 12.5 Licenses not loaning down.

2019-05-14 Thread Anthony Holloway
"Severity: 5 Cosmetic"  = Don't worry, everything is fine, it just looks
like it's not working

"Workaround: on CUCM ... assign additional device to the users" = Do a
bunch of work to fix our mistake, that you'll later have to rip out, once
we get it working.

So, is it cosmetic, or is it a huge problem?  Because it kind of seems like
the latter.  Someone should write an article on the hidden costs of owning
Cisco solutions.  I mean, who pays for all of the work to add these
devices, associate them, and then clean it all up later?

On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 10:03 AM Brian Meade  wrote:

> Here's the bug for the Satellite server-
> https://bst.cloudapps.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCvh16069
>
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 10:40 AM Jason Aarons (Americas) <
> jason.aar...@dimensiondata.com> wrote:
>
>> I seem to recall seeing a bug note, about works with Smart Software
>> Manager Satellite.  Open a case with TAC/Licensing.  Not sure what fix is.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Nick
>> via cisco-voip
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 14, 2019 9:03 AM
>> *To:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] Unity Connection 12.5 Licenses not loaning down.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I have upgraded a client to 12.5.1.1-23  who has also migrated to
>> flex knowledge worker, the licenses for Unity Connection have been supplied
>> as enhanced messaging and not basic messaging and my licenses are not
>> loaning down and out of compliance, according to the docs they should loan
>> as below, anyone come across this issue yet?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Cisco Smart Software Licensing supports license hierarchy, in which
>> higher level licenses are utilized to fulfill the request for lower level
>> licenses to avoid a shortage of the licenses. Following are the licenses
>> included in license hierarchy in an order from higher level to lower level:
>>
>> Unity Connection Enhanced Messaging User Licenses (12.x)
>> Unity Connection Basic Messaging User Licenses (12.x)
>>
>>
>>
>> itevomcid
>> ___
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


Re: [cisco-voip] Expressway E Firewall Rule Activation

2019-04-30 Thread Anthony Holloway
If you stick the Edge LAN1 on the inside (where Core is), then doesn't this
technically circumvent the "traversal" part of the technology?  Because we
point Core at Edge via it's LAN 1 IP, right?  Or am I missing something?



On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 11:33 AM Ryan Huff  wrote:

> Not generally, no. A couple of my larger customer’s that have fully
> fleshed out IT departments did though.
>
> For a few of my customers I’ve had to walk them through setting a 2nd one
> up. In some cases, not even a true DMZ and just a new network and lock it
> down with ACLs.
>
> I’ve also had customer’s which do the DMZ on “LAN2” (outside), and then
> keeps LAN1 in the same network as Expressway-C. This particular method
> doesn’t offer a lot of advantages (from a infosec perspective) over a
> “Single NIC”, but still makes the traffic flow more logical, easier to
> support and troubleshoot and keeps you from having to “hairpin” in the
> firewall (ewww, like gag me with a spoon man lol), which I have never been
> a fan of from a design perspective.
>
> -Ryan
>
> On Apr 30, 2019, at 12:12, Anthony Holloway <
> avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ryan,
>
> Do you have any insight as to whether or not it's common for Firewalls in
> the field to already have more than one DMZ defined?  In my limited
> experience, I have never seen it done, and I am having to have that second
> DMZ created to support Expressway.  For that reason, I actually tend to
> think the single NIC approach is better, although, the NAT reflection could
> be a limitation of some firewalls.
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 11:09 AM Ryan Huff  wrote:
>
>> Adam,
>>
>> I certainly didn't mean to imply the, "Expressway Edge on a Stick" method
>> doesn't work, though out of pure technical curiosity, I would be curious as
>> to what exists in your environment that would make a " single NIC"
>> Expressway Edge deployment more preferred than "dual NICs" (not that I
>> expect you would or could say). I can think of very few reasons that a
>> single NIC edge would be more ideal than a dual NIC edge (outside of the
>> infosec team just not wanting to screw with the firewall, or production not
>> being able to sustain a maintenance window); its easier to troubleshoot,
>> easier to install, easier to support and easier to secure.
>>
>> Though, I suspect I'm, "preaching to the choir", lol . All good my
>> friend.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ryan
>>
>> --
>> *From:* Pawlowski, Adam 
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 30, 2019 11:36 AM
>> *To:* 'Ryan Huff'
>> *Cc:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>> *Subject:* RE: [cisco-voip] Expressway E Firewall Rule Activation
>>
>>
>> Ryan,
>>
>>
>>
>> The “tl;dr” is that we were sort of given the recommendation by Cisco to
>> just run it with the single interface given our environment and
>> requirements, and hasn’t given us any trouble that I can recall.
>>
>>
>>
>> Long story is …
>>
>>
>> Our environment ends up being the driver for a lot of this, as it is sort
>> of a historic design from the early internet, with just about everything on
>> public address space, and various services and networks secured behind
>> firewalls as needed from internal and external alike.
>>
>>
>>
>> In the dual interface design, the outside interface sits in a “DMZ” with
>> a firewall, which we don’t have available explicitly. There is a border
>> firewall but that isn’t really its function. The inside leg has to sit
>> somewhere as well, which is a place that doesn’t exist.
>>
>>
>> We did have a competitor’s border proxy become compromised in the past
>> due to a software update, and this model where the inside wasn’t properly
>> secured – and given our current VMWare topology, creating another zone to
>> hairpin traffic around to separate that inside interface wasn’t in the
>> cards. Not to mention the annoyance of trying to setup split routes on this
>> device to allow some traffic to go in, some to go out, in an environment
>> that is MRA only.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you trust the E enough never to be a bad actor, then you could put
>> that interface in the same zone as your other collaboration appliances,
>> like the Expressway C, but, we didn’t want to do that either really.
>>
>>
>>
>> Given that, we did have a call with Cisco to discuss this, and with
>> representation from the Expressway group they recommended that we stick
>> with the single interface design.  That was

Re: [cisco-voip] Cisco Live CLUS anyone??

2019-04-30 Thread Anthony Holloway
By "green body paint," I hope you meant Hulk, because I already called dibs
on cosplaying as Gamora.

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 10:53 AM Jason Aarons (Americas) <
jason.aar...@dimensiondata.com> wrote:

> So which Avenger character are you going to be?  We fully expect you to
> dress up in character.  How do you look wearing green body paint?
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Stephen
> Welsh
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 30, 2019 2:35 AM
> *To:* Anthony Holloway 
> *Cc:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Cisco Live CLUS anyone??
>
>
>
>
>
> I’ll be there too.
>
>
>
> The WebEx room was fun and helpful, another would be great.
>
>
>
> We will have a stand again
>
>
>
> Stephen Welsh
>
> Founder & CTO
>
> UnifiedFX
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On 29 Apr 2019, at 20:39, Anthony Holloway <
> avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'll be there!
>
>
>
> Last year, I started a webex teams room for those of us who were in
> attendance (and wanted to be in the room).  A few of us used it to
> coordinate meetups.  There was also some good conversation in the room
> during the week as well.  Mostly, heads-ups on events, humor and commentary
> on what was being learned that week.
>
>
>
> I might even been in the Engineering Deathmatch again, as a defending
> champ.  I hope to god they don't put me up against you Ryan.  Fingers
> crossed.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 2:19 PM Ryan Huff  wrote:
>
> Just curious to know whom (if anyone) from the list will be at CLUS this
> year in San Diego? I will be and would love to meetup with those from the
> list whom I’ve only exchanged emails with thus far.
> ___
> 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
>
>
>
> itevomcid
> ___
> 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


  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >