[cisco-voip] CM stable @ 6.1.2.1106?

Tue Aug 12 09:37:51 EDT 2008

The ES patches were always there for 4.x and the periodic SR releases  
were pretty much ES patches that got some extra testing.  With 5.x  
and later we don't have SRs any longer, and you will see ES patches  
released to cisco.com after they have been out for 4 weeks (I think)  
with no major bugs filed against them.  ES patches do get tested and  
the "pre-builds not mainstream, ie test at your own risk" thought is  
nowhere near applicable.   If you are running any appliance based  
version of CUCM you should get used to the idea of running an ES  
version because you will have to at some point.

-Ryan

On Aug 12, 2008, at 1:13 AM, James Buchanan wrote:

It depends. I have a customer who uses Extension Mobility extensively  
and it locks everything up (per them). TAC told them to install the  
ES. While I don’t go out and download the latest ES (or even SR)  
necessarily, Cisco does support them and release them for a reason. I  
do not recall seeing ESes hardly at all for 4.x, so I would assume  
this ES is significant enough to demand a closer look.

From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-voip- 
bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Darren
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 11:07 PM
Cc: Cisco VoIP
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CM stable @ 6.1.2.1106?

So what are everybodies thoughts on running an ES?  as 1106-1 is an  
ES.  My thoughts are ES are "pre-builds not mainstream, i.e. test are  
your own risk".  6.1.2.1000-13 is the main release.  I've seen a  
number of these rolled out (main release 1000-13) and only one has a  
problem which required a cluster reboot, the issue didn't affect call  
processing but did affect management (changing settings, etc).

Cheers,

D

On 8/12/08, Steve G <smgustafson at gmail.com> wrote:

My first install with CM6 is on Business Edition running  
6.1.1.3000-2.  My BAT experience was very painful.  I first attempted  
to insert phones with users with 1 DN and 1 Intercom.  It would not  
let me insert the default activated device on the intercom line.  The  
syntax is SEP<mac address> but it does not recognize the device name  
as it is not valid.  I also could not insert the owner userid of the  
phone because it to was not valid.  I also could not insert the  
primary user device for mobility.  so, inserting phones with users is  
something that really needs to be tested and fixed in my opinion.  I  
went back to the old way of importing phones/users with just the user  
ID and the DN.  that seemed to work as long as you didn't use any of  
the new fields.  So I wanted to add 1 intercom using the "add  
intercom" tab in the bat.xls spreadsheet.  It was great except it did  
not have a field for the intercom default activated device, which is  
mandatory.  so once the phones were in I ended up creating a new  
spreadsheet for just phones, and imported the same fields for my DN  
and Intercom and this time it all seemed to import, except it deleted  
the device association of my users.  I spent WAY too much time on  
this ordeal.  I was running in circles, so I got to a point where I  
started updating 100 phones and users by hand.  That took me an  
afternoon to get everything right but I figured I would have been  
messing with BAT for much longer.

Steve

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 3:43 PM, STEVEN CASPER <SCASPER at mtb.com> wrote:

One was CSCso91969  - Insert of phones,RDP fails to insert CFA
parameters. We still have a TAC case open I believe, the work around did
not work for us.

 >>> Rob Gilreath <rgilreath at hbs.net> 8/11/2008 5:42 PM >>>

Can you guys that have seen issues with the BAT give a quick summary?
I've not seen any yet myself, but knowing of them ahead of time would
be nice…

From:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of STEVEN
CASPER
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 4:39 PM
To: Erik Goppel; Jason Aarons (US)
Cc: Cisco VoIP
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CM stable @ 6.1.2.1106?

Got to agree with the BAT comment. Due to BAT problems we discovered
during testing we had to put the upgrade to 6.1.2 on hold. We are
rolling out a 100-200 or so phones a week so the proper operation of BAT
is a big deal to us.

Steve

 >>> "Erik Goppel" <egoppel at gmail.com> 8/11/2008 5:04 PM >>>

got 2 customers over 8000 phones running stable. one customer running
Unity Connection with 6400 VM`s at the same version also stable.

BAT is a total different story, i`d suggest testing BAT to see if you
can work with it.

good luck,

Erik Goppel

Dimension Data Netherlands

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Jason Aarons (US)
<jason.aarons at us.didata.com> wrote:

I've had no issues with 6.1.2-1000-13 in regards to stability.   Most
installs have been 100-500 handsets SCCP 7941/7961.  Larger 4000-12,000
are staying with 4.1.3sr7 (they have a longer lifecycle between upgrades
due to UCCE, etc). 6.1.2-1000-13 has some bugs but end users don't
notice.  I would call it General Deployment release.

From:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Scott Voll
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 3:43 PM
To: Cisco VoIP
Subject: [cisco-voip] CM stable @ 6.1.2.1106?

I'm putting a new / upgraded CM 6.1.2 into production this weekend.
Should I be running 6.1.2.1000-13 or 1106-1?  any issues with either
one?

Thanks

Scott

Disclaimer: This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain
confidential and privileged information and is for use by the designated
addressee(s) named above only. If you are not the intended addressee,
you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in
error and that any use or reproduction of this email or its contents is
strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this
message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you.

_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

************************************This email may contain privileged
and/or confidential information that is intended solely for the use of
the addressee.  If you are not the intended recipient or entity, you are
strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing or using any
of the information contained in the transmission.  If you received this
communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and
destroy the material in its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy.
This communication may contain nonpublic personal information about
consumers subject to the restrictions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.  You may not directly or indirectly reuse or
disclose such information for any purpose other than to provide the
services for which you are receiving the information.There are risks
associated with the use of electronic transmission.  The sender of this
information does not control the method of transmittal or service
providers and assumes no duty or obligation for the security, receipt,
or third party interception of this
transmission.************************************
************************************
This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information  
that is intended solely for the use of the addressee.  If you are not  
the intended recipient or entity, you are strictly prohibited from  
disclosing, copying, distributing or using any of the information  
contained in the transmission.  If you received this communication in  
error, please contact the sender immediately and destroy the material  
in its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy.  This communication  
may contain nonpublic personal information about consumers subject to  
the restrictions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Sarbanes-Oxley  
Act.  You may not directly or indirectly reuse or disclose such  
information for any purpose other than to provide the services for  
which you are receiving the information.
There are risks associated with the use of electronic transmission.   
The sender of this information does not control the method of  
transmittal or service providers and assumes no duty or obligation  
for the security, receipt, or third party interception of this  
transmission.
************************************
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20080812/c99ad41c/attachment-0001.html>