[cisco-voip] Exchange 2007 SIP and CCM6.0

[Corbett Enders]

Well, I'd guess that you need a box for Unity or a box for Exchange UM,
so that would be a wash.
You'll need an Exchange license or a license for Unity... wash?
You'll need Exchange Enterprise CALs on top of the standard CAL (it is
an additive CAL now, you need both) or you get the CALs for Unity.
Wash?

So in the end, it boils down to functionality.   And I have to think
Unity has more functionality from a pure VOICEMAIL system right now, but
it won't be long for Microsoft to catch up.

---------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 16:56:50 -0600
From: "Voice Noob" <voicenoob at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Exchange 2007 SIP and CCM6.0
To: "Scott Voll" <svoll.voip at gmail.com>
Cc: "Madziarczyk, Jonathan" <JMad at cityofevanston.org>,
	cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Message-ID:
	<535625f70802081456n3e55c812j7ce3cb63fb0dca5d at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

If you have 800 - 1000 phone you shoul dhave multiple exchange servers
and
one dedicated to the UM role according to microsoft design guides.  So
once
again if you add the price of the additional exchange server license and
now
the additional x64 server hardware I bet you are not saving much money.

This does not take into account your specail state pricing.

On Feb 8, 2008 4:49 PM, Scott Voll <svoll.voip at gmail.com> wrote:

> well the School district loves Exchange for the voice portal vs the
press
> 1 for this that and the other thing.  unless you have a second server
and
> unity 5.x  which adds $$$ also.  especially on a small SD size of
800-1000
> phones.  and the pricing between UM and VM licenses on Unity is huge.
>
> Scott
>
> PS>  I use Unity 5.x UM personally ;-)
>
>   On Feb 8, 2008 1:33 PM, Voice Noob <voicenoob at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I completely agree with you. I also think that OCS will be a product
> > that is going to very good after a few years.  The thing is I am
installing
> > these products today and must deploy the best solution for my
customers and
> > a hacked together system that saves them 10% is not in my best
interest.
> >
> >
> > On Feb 8, 2008 3:30 PM, Craig Staffin <craig at staffin.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Voice Noob
> > >
> > > Keep in mind that exchange 07 unified messaging is version 1.
> > >
> > > Give it two years and see how much competition it can give to
Unity.
> > > My guess the way its already going is Unity will be in trouble;
> > >
> > > Just my .02
> > > Craig
> > >
> > >
> > > On Feb 8, 2008 3:15 PM, Voice Noob <voicenoob at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Not everyone has that. So once you purchase the correct exchange
> > > > CAL, and the MWI software it may not be that much more to just
purchase
> > > > Unity. I don't think Exchange 2007 can compare to Unity in the
number or
> > > > features it has.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 8, 2008 3:11 PM, Scott Voll <svoll.voip at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > School district..... SLA ..... State contract pricing......
Better
> > > > > pricing then Unity ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 8, 2008 1:10 PM, Voice Noob <voicenoob at gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > You have to purchase diffrent Exchange CAL's if you use the
UM
> > > > > > role so it is going to cost you more $$$ for the correct
Exchange CAL.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Feb 8, 2008 2:52 PM, Voice Noob <voicenoob at gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > What third party software are you using?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Feb 8, 2008 2:47 PM, Scott Voll <svoll.voip at gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have it in production at one of our School Districts
but
> > > > > > > > with CM 5.1 not 6.x.
> > > > > > > > The MWI doesn't work by default but with a 3rd party
vendor
> > > > > > > > their is software you load on exchange to get that
working.... But the
> > > > > > > > negitive is that you have to enable it on a per box
basis.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Scott
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Feb 8, 2008 8:29 AM, Madziarczyk, Jonathan <
> > > > > > > > JMad at cityofevanston.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm about to start testing Exchange 2007's new SIP
> > > > > > > > > voicemail option in
> > > > > > > > > conjunction with CCM6.0 in the hopes of that becoming
my
> > > > > > > > > new VM system
> > > > > > > > > (currently on CallXpress).  Has anyone done this yet,
or
> > > > > > > > > have any
> > > > > > > > > experience with this?  I've heard there are some MWI
> > > > > > > > > issues, but that
> > > > > > > > > there are 3rd party products to help with that end.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > JM
> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Craig Staffin
> > > Craig at staffin.org
> > > (H) 262-437-7313
> > > (C) 262-613-6003
> >
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20080208/1f3bb3
a8/attachment.html 

------------------------------

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


End of cisco-voip Digest, Vol 52, Issue 61
******************************************