[cisco-voip] Torn apart by choices - old or new solutions?Simply speaking: CM5.0 or CM4.x

Thu Apr 13 13:55:44 EDT 2006

We upgraded to 4.0, and had quite a few bugs and issues with it until we got
on 4.1. The upgrade itself went very smoothly, but the problems lingered for
about 6months for us.

My 2 cents would be to hound your SE for a clear picture of the feature sets
of each version, and make your decision based on that, keeping in mind what
everyone has pretty much said about the dot oh (no!). If theres some killer
feature that you can't live without, then maybe you should explore going to
5.0, depending on what your schedule looks like... still might want to wait
for a maintenance release or so.

I think we are going to hold off until 5.1.somethinggreaterthan0 - depends
on how bad we need those busy lamp fields by the end of the summer I think.

Ed
On 4/13/06, Voll, Scott <Scott.Voll at wesd.org> wrote:
>
>  Once again to echo:
>
>
>
> 4.1 ---- features ------ 5.0
>
> 4.2 -----features ----- 5.1
>
>
>
> I think I heard 5.1 is slated for end of this year, (But it's Cisco, so
> probably beginning of 2007)
>
>
>
> I will be waiting for 5.2 personally, but am really looking forward to the
> patching / upgrade process of the 5.x train with active and standby
> partitions.
>
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> PS.  The last "dot oh" upgrade I did, took 23 hours, 3 tac engineers and
> 6-7 developers.
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] *On Behalf Of *Lelio Fulgenzi
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 13, 2006 9:19 AM
> *To:* candace_holman at harvard.edu; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Torn apart by choices - old or new
> solutions?Simply speaking: CM5.0 or CM4.x
>
>
>
> Agreed on those points. Sticking with 4.1(3) should provide an easier
> feature upgrade to 5.0. But from what I hear, the 4.2 features will be
> available in 5.1 and that was slated for release in 2007 or something like
> that. But you are right....I would use several years as a guide line. 2 to 3
> years.
>
>
>
> It comes down to:
>
>    - feature availability (SIP, etc)
>    - upgrade issues (current features not supported in future version
>    target)
>    - bleeding edge factor -or- the "dot oh" syndrome
>    - support issues (how much experience does the TAC have)
>    - stability (are there all the patches you want in there)
>
>  and I would also add, product availability. It's probably alot easier to
> get 4.1(3) install media than it would be 4.2 or 5.0.
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Network Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
> 50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day:   buffer overrun
>
>  ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Candace Holman <candace_holman at harvard.edu>
>
> *To:* cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 13, 2006 12:11 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Torn apart by choices - old or new solutions?
> Simply speaking: CM5.0 or CM4.x
>
>
>
> To some extent I agree with Lelio and Scott, but it may be worth it to
> you to consider some other points:
>
>     * 4.x will not have SIP lines for several years at best
>     * 5.x has the option for SIP and SCCP
>     * it could be difficult to upgrade 4.2 -> 5.x because some of the
>       user features in 4.2 are not duplicated in 5.x for several years
>       at best
>     * 5.x is a RH Linux train, 4.2 is windows so your considerations for
>       hardware, organizational policies or tech philosophies,
>       engineering skillset, etc _may_ be different
>
> Candace
>
> > Subject:
> > [cisco-voip] Torn apart by choices - old or new solutions? Simply
> > speaking: CM5.0 or CM4.x
> > From:
> > Netfortius <netfortius at gmail.com>
> > Date:
> > Thu, 13 Apr 2006 10:33:58 -0500
> >
> > To:
> > cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> >
> >
> > You may have already gotten used to my last string of questions here,
> which -
> > I am not hiding it - are part of my attempt to gain info from the more
> > experienced people, on this subject, regarding a project I am working on
> for
> > deployment of multi-site IPT & VoIP. I have gone into some details, for
> some
> > questions I had, but now - reading tons of material every day, I have
> become
> > very worried about the full blown solution chosen, vs. what is being
> promised
> > just "around the corner". Here is where I would appreciate any comments,
> of
> > any nature, thoughts, experience, "what-if" - anything you can share
> about
> > this subject:
> >
> > Scenario: multi-site deployment of Cisco CM, with the following
> objectives in
> > mind:
> >
> > 1. Replacement of existing old telephony solution, Nortel-based,
> consisting of
> > PBX in each location, with Cisco-based IP-based communication systems
> (and
> > not only one-to-one replacement of phones, but also steps toward unified
>
> > communications)
> >
> > 2. Installation of Cisco solution consisting of:
> > a. CM 4.x (advised by Cisco) at the HQ + Unity integrated with Exchange
> 2003
> > and a handful of IP phones (major testers of the technology) and
> integration
> > with existing Nortel PBX at the HQ (PHASE 1)
> > b. IP phones in the remote location (complete replacement of everything
> old,
> > including PBX) + SRST + standalone (storage-wise) Unity (PHASE 1)
> > c. Unified messaging at the HQ, in the "pilot" group, to the best of the
>
> > abilities and availability of products around CM 4.x (e.g. PA, among
> others,
> > as an example of what I am getting at) (PHASE 1)
> > d. Experience from c> ==> full implementation of unified messaging at
> the
> > first remote ("upgrade" of the standalone Unity into an Exchange-tied
> one -
> > is this even possible?!?) (PHASE 2)
> > e. remote site used as template fro all other sites (PHASE 2)
> > f. full upgrade at the HQ (PHASE 2), with the exception of Call Center
> > g. Cisco IPCC replacement of the existing Nortel Call Center, after the
> > entire VoIP and IPT has proven reliable to sustain a Customer Service
> (PHASE
> > 3)
> >
> > 3. The unified communications (including messaging) will eventually
> adddress
> > various business needs, primarily focused on mobility and real-time
> > communications and sharing
> >
> > Having said all of the above, here are the issues I am struggling with:
> >
> > - I have (and nobody in my network geeks group) no real experience with
> Cisco
> > VoIP/IPT;
> > - the suggested solution, from Cisco, revolves around a CM 4.2 and,
> gradually,
> > as explained above, updates to the point of full unified messaging -
> still
> > 4.2-based
> > - I am getting conflicting messages from our Cisco group - they advise
> us to
> > do the install with CM 4.2 (which would end up as a cluster of multiple
> > servers, at the HQ), not CM 5.0, but:
> > - I am reading and reading, and it appears to me that some features
> associated
> > with CM 4.2 are dying (e.g. PA), while CM 5.0 seems to open the door for
> much
> > more, but not everything backward compatible with 4.x
> > - tons of features are being advertised as related to CM 5.0, only, but
> are
> > not ready yet, and are to be released this year (majority in second
> quarter)
> >
> > Bottom line - I am struggling with one major question (with no easy
> answer -
> > thus appreciating any comments this list may have): should I move ahead
> as
> > started, with the one site + pilot HQ, on CM 4.2 (PHASE 1), then go over
> all
> > phases, then analyze what would need to be upgraded to a 5.0environment, if
> > certain additional features would become available and needed, and not
> > backward compatible
> > OR
> > should I just put a stop to the CM 4.x analysis and planning, and redo
> > everything (with the delay caused by various products availability)
> around CM
> > 5.0?
> >
> > As I said - any $0.02-$64K comments will be really appreciated. I will
> try to
> > consolidate this type of info, in something useful, if enough data
> warrants
> > it.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Stefan
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>

--
Ed Leatherman
IP Telephony Coordinator
West Virginia University
Telecommunications and Network Operations
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20060413/7773eeb3/attachment-0001.html 