Do you know if SRSV can operate while CUCM is up?
The great thing about CUE, is that it operated while CUCM was up. Completely
independent of Unity Connection.
This means, I could schedule downtime for Connection and have an almost fully
operational AA working.
From: Eric Pedersen
Sent:
I used SRSV a while ago for one of our remote sites. I found it much simpler to
get up and running than CUE and you can use your centralized Exchange. IIRC
you can send your voicemail pilot back to the gateway SRSV is registered to so
all calls go to it. But it's been a really long time...
Yes, from what I remember it can operate while CUCM and CUCX are both up.
From: cisco-voip On Behalf Of Lelio
Fulgenzi
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 9:37 AM
To: voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net)
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Cisco moth-balling CUE - Is Connection SRSV the
answer?
I use UCXN , the “Cisco” part I guess implied. Feels like one too many letters
though.
As for cluster downtime, the only time we really had the system completely down
had been for Unity -> Unity Connection migration, and if we have to grow the
cluster again to support more Jabber clients and
"CUCX"
I find it interesting the different ways we Engineers write that. I have
also seen CUXN, CUCXN and CUC. I'm team CUC, but I think we can all agree
that simply "Unity" is wrong.
On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 12:45 PM Eric Pedersen
wrote:
> Yes, from what I remember it can operate while CUCM
Lelio, just curious why you would have scheduled downtime for the entire
CUC cluster? I can appreciate downtime for a node for maintenance, but
even during an upgrade, your cluster should be up, one node or the other.
If it's more DC / network outage, why not have the 2nd node of your CUC
Ok. Thanks. This might work.
What I’m hoping to be able to do is to manually redirect calls from Connection
to SRSV (for AA and voicemail) and still allow calls to be transferred
accordingly to phones registered to CUCM, not SRST.
This was easily done with CUE, since it would register to both
I find myself swapping between CUC and CUCXN, depending on who I'm talking
to and context, and if it's someone not in Collaboration, Spelling it out.
Seems CUCM is universal around technical people, but the others aren't so
much.
Unity... *shudders*
On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 1:01 PM Anthony
The nice thing about CUC vs CUCM, is that while you still have a publisher
for CUC, the sub can become master of the application (much like UCCX can,
and yes, we still use that acronym a lot) :)
If something happens to your CUC server, you are rebuilding from the DRS.
if you had a sub, you
If AA is that critical you could always standup a CUC server that only handles
AA as a backup. There wouldn’t be a license impact with PLM/Smart Licensing as
you don’t need any users.
> On May 4, 2020, at 15:13, Lelio Fulgenzi wrote:
>
>
> All valid questions. No offense taken. Unless of
CUC can run on UCS-E blades:
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/connection/REST-API/APIs_Pages/b_Cisco-Unity-Connection-on-UCSE.html
SIP trunk from the ISR to CUC on the blade?
Alternatively, you could hairpin the calls and send them to a central CUC over
the PRI/SIP provider.
I’m still wondering if people use UCCX?
From: cisco-voip On Behalf Of Charles
Goldsmith
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 2:12 PM
To: Anthony Holloway
Cc: voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net)
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Cisco moth-balling CUE - Is Connection SRSV the
answer?
CAUTION:
All valid questions. No offense taken. Unless of course, you complain about me
primarily using the @ macro plus route filters in all my route patterns. Then,
them’s fighting words.
The great thing about CUE was that it covered all scenarios with one solution.
Every other scenario will need
In my experience with it, message replication or something can break, and TAC
can fix it, but that’s pretty rare.
I’ve yet to have any other sort of database issues with it, and it only has
been upset by overloading it, or resources issues in VMWare.
If you’re going to play the “if it doesn’t
I was thinking about that. But, like I said, CUE covers _all_ scenarios.
I couldn’t make this work at a remote location without compute power and a CUCM
subscriber.
Now, if CUCn supported SRST and would run on a UCS-E blade, I’d be happy.
From: UC Penguin
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 4:40 PM
To:
The acronym I mean.
From: cisco-voip On Behalf Of Lelio
Fulgenzi
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 4:11 PM
To: Charles Goldsmith ; Anthony Holloway
Cc: voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip@puck.nether.net)
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Cisco moth-balling CUE - Is Connection SRSV the
answer?
I’m still
I remember first reading about CUC cluster. If anyone called a port on the
second server it automatically become master and all hell broke loose.
I’m sure they’ve fixed things by now.
Unfortunately, with us, we’re so swamped, we’re busy playing catchup rather
than improving our design. ☹
A
Thanks Adam. For the life of me I couldn’t remember the router based AA
solution – the TCL script.
That’s something I think I may want to investigate as the failover if SRSV
doesn’t work out. We’d have to ‘outsource’ it though, maybe even to our web
solutions team who does programming. I can’t
Interesting. More to think about. Thats for sure.
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 4, 2020, at 5:08 PM, UC Penguin wrote:
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
So the actual outcome was to installed TMS 15.11 on Windows 2019. The installer
upgraded the DB upon install.
The key was to import the DB prior to install and let the installer detect the
database.
From: cisco-voip On Behalf Of Dana Tong
Sent: Monday, 27 April 2020 4:13 PM
To:
20 matches
Mail list logo
