[cisco-voip] cisco-voip Digest, Vol 64, Issue 18
Cesar fiestas
fiestas.cesar at gmail.com
Wed Feb 18 19:04:30 EST 2009
Mayte,
If you have access to the cli go ahead an create a new web administrator
account, and give it a try :)
Cesar Fiestas
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 6:30 AM, Mayte Cantillo <mayte at fiu.edu> wrote:
> We just finished setting up a box on CUCM 6.1.3, and we used a DMA file
> to import the database from CUCM 4.2.3 The only change we did when
> importing the DMA file was to change the original hostname. We are not
> using DNS in our environment.
>
> On Friday, I was able to log in to the CM admin page fine. Yesterday I
> went to upload the license file, and I could not log in anymore. When I
try
> to log in to the CM admin page, I keep getting a "Database connection
> error". I have this box set up currently in a test environment.
>
> Any light anyone might be able to shed will be appreciated? Not looking
> forward to re-do this box but, needs to be finished Wednesday. L
>
> Thanks!
>
> - Mayte.
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 12:00 PM, <cisco-voip-request at puck.nether.net>wrote:
> Send cisco-voip mailing list submissions to
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> cisco-voip-request at puck.nether.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> cisco-voip-owner at puck.nether.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of cisco-voip digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. UCCX historical report: DB access (rj.e at gmx.de)
> 2. Getting Park functionality from analog devices
> (Christopher M. Bomba)
> 3. Re: End of the PBX (Scott Voll)
> 4. Re: Getting Park functionality from analog devices
> (Lelio Fulgenzi)
> 5. Re: End of the PBX (Lelio Fulgenzi)
> 6. Re: Getting Park functionality from analog devices (Ryan Ratliff)
> 7. Re: Getting Park functionality from analog devices
> (Christopher M. Bomba)
> 8. Re: End of the PBX (James Buchanan)
> 9. Re: Upgrade from CUCM 4.2.3 to 6.1.3 (Scott Voll)
> 10. Re: End of the PBX (Matt Slaga (US))
> 11. Re: End of the PBX (Jason Aarons (US))
> 12. Unity problem (Victor Rodriguez)
> 13. Re: Unity problem (Jason Aarons (US))
> 14. Re: VG224 and Call boxes (Biffle, Gerrad)
> 15. IPCC 4 agent (John Botha - I.T)
> 16. Re: IPCC 4 agent (Tanner Ezell)
> 17. Re: End of the PBX (Lelio Fulgenzi)
> 18. Re: Recover AIM-CUE (Carter, Bill)
> 19. List.xml 7979 7911 Background Image for CallManager
> (Ant?nio Fragoso)
> 20. Re: End of the PBX (Lelio Fulgenzi)
> 21. Convert IPCC 4 scripts to CUCCX 7 (c3voip)
> 22. Re: IPCC 4 agent (Johnny)
> 23. Re: List.xml 7979 7911 Background Image for CallManager
> (Jack Martin)
> 24. Re: End of the PBX (Matt Slaga (US))
> 25. Re: Convert IPCC 4 scripts to CUCCX 7 (Scott Voll)
> 26. Re: Convert IPCC 4 scripts to CUCCX 7 (Matthew Loraditch)
> 27. Re: Convert IPCC 4 scripts to CUCCX 7 (James Buchanan)
> 28. Re: Unity problem (Vignesh)
> 29. Re: Unity problem (Rasim Duric)
> 30. Billing server setup (Michael Back)
> 31. Re: Convert IPCC 4 scripts to CUCCX 7 (Scott Voll)
> 32. Re: Billing server setup (Samuel Womack)
> 33. Re: Billing server setup (Michael Back)
> 34. Re: Billing server setup (Ed Leatherman)
> 35. [cisco-voip]
> <0B9DBADCC054F343A927FD1BC72C60AB06FA53FE58 at exchangemb-srv.baicv.local
> >
> (Inder Singh)
> 36. DID (Inder Singh)
> 37. VG224 and Call boxes (Inder Singh)
> 38. NTP Reference for IP Phones (Inder Singh)
> 39. CME group phone broadcast (Inder Singh)
> 40. Re: Switch replacement causes one-way audio? (Aman Chugh)
> 41. Re: Billing server setup (Wes Sisk)
> 42. When is End of Life for Call Manager 4.1? (Miller, Steve)
> 43. Call Forward on failure (Aman Chugh)
> 44. Latest Firmware for Call Manager 4.1 Phones? (Miller, Steve)
> 45. Re: When is End of Life for Call Manager 4.1? (Lelio Fulgenzi)
> 46. Re: Call Forward on failure (Lelio Fulgenzi)
> 47. Re: Call Forward on failure (Wes Sisk)
> 48. Re: CUCM 6.1.3 media (FrogOnDSCP46EF)
> 49. Re: Billing server setup (Samuel Womack)
> 50. Re: Call Forward on failure (Aman Chugh)
> 51. Fax and Modem Parameters ? (Dane)
> 52. Re: Billing server setup (Michael Back)
> 53. Re: Billing server setup (Ruben Montes (Europe))
> 54. Re: Fwd: NTP Reference for IP Phones (Marcelo Zilio)
> 55. Re: Fax and Modem Parameters ? (Ed Leatherman)
> 56. Re: When is End of Life for Call Manager 4.1? (Turpin, Mark)
> 57. Re: When is End of Life for Call Manager 4.1? (Craig Staffin)
> 58. Re: When is End of Life for Call Manager 4.1? (Ryan Ratliff)
> 59. Re: Fwd: NTP Reference for IP Phones (Ryan Ratliff)
> 60. Re: When is End of Life for Call Manager 4.1? (Patrick Aland)
> 61. Re: Fax and Modem Parameters ? (Scott Voll)
> 62. Re: When is End of Life for Call Manager 4.1? (Lelio Fulgenzi)
> 63. Re: When is End of Life for Call Manager 4.1? (Lelio Fulgenzi)
> 64. Barge-in button disbled in CAD supervisor (shary shary)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:59:51 +0100
> From: rj.e at gmx.de
> Subject: [cisco-voip] UCCX historical report: DB access
> To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Message-ID: <20090217165951.270900 at gmx.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> After changing SQL Server to allow both SQL Authentication and Win NT
> Authentication, I cannot login anymore to UCCX Historical Reports
> application.
>
> Log file (*_CiscoAppReports0.log) says:
> 1: 17.02.2009 17:38:12 %CHC-LOG_SUBFAC-3-UNK:Database connection to
> 'CRA_DATABASE' failed due to ([Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL
> Server]Login failed for user 'db_cra'.)
> 2: 17.02.2009 17:38:12 %CHC-LOG_SUBFAC-3-UNK:Datenbankverbindungsfehler |
> Die Anmeldung bei der Datenbank ist fehlgeschlagen. Bitten Sie den
> Administrator, die ID und das Kennwort des Datenbankbenutzers, die dynamisch
> vom Unified CCX-Server abgerufen werden, zu ?berpr?fen.
> 3: 17.02.2009 17:38:13 %CHC-LOG_SUBFAC-3-UNK:CRA_DATABASE Connection
> String: Provider=MSDASQL;APP=Cisco CRA Historical Reports3892;Persist
> Security Info=False;Trusted_Connection=No;DRIVER=SQL
> Server;UID=db_cra;PWD=*****;SERVER=10.178.209.197\CRSSQL,4433;DATABASE=db_cra;NETWORK=dbmssocn;
> 4: 17.02.2009 17:38:13 %CHC-LOG_SUBFAC-3-UNK:Failed to login user to the
> apps server since we failed to initialize database connections
>
>
> I created also a new System-DSN (db_cra1) in ODBC Admin (test was OK) and
> added that to hrcConfig.ini:
>
> [CRA_DATABASE]
> DRIVER=SQL Server
> SERVER=10.178.209.196\CRSSQL
> DATABASE=db_cra1
> AUTH=2
> NETWORK=dbmssocn
> PORT=4433
> UID=db_cra1
>
> But does not help, still same message (concerning db_cra and
> 10.178.209.197\CRSSQL instead of db_cra1 and 10.178.209.196\CRSSQL !?)
>
> I'm a bit confused what settings are taken for DB access? Any ideas?
>
> Reinhold
>
>
> --
> Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger geh?rt? Der kann`s mit allen:
> http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger01
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:03:22 -0500
> From: "Christopher M. Bomba" <cbomba at s4nets.com>
> Subject: [cisco-voip] Getting Park functionality from analog devices
> To: <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
> Message-ID: <004a01c99121$a4253560$ec6fa020$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Anyone know of a way to get some Park like functionality from analog phones
> connected to a VG224 running SCCP. The documentation says that Park is a
> supported feature but we followed up with Cisco and it is in fact not
> supported. The site had this functionality before we migrated to Cisco and
> they are getting upset.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:05:04 -0800
> From: Scott Voll <svoll.voip at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] End of the PBX
> To: Tim Ritter <timritter at gmail.com>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Message-ID:
> <f84a38d30902170905neeb9801ndbfb2b1e7e9adb90 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I don't know if I can give you much.
>
> M$ does do a good job of Presence, and IM. I think that Unified messaging
> still has a little to be desired, but in 3 to 5 years I think they could
> nail that down. I do have a school using Exchange 2k7 for there UM system.
> works well for them. We use OCS for Presence and IM and am working on
> integrating it with CM when I have time.
>
> I don't think I like the idea of runing my call processing on M$ now that
> I'm on the appliance based CM. But that doesn't mean that there won't be a
> mix and match of systems in the future if both M$ and Ci$co don't do things
> to make one system or the other, truely the best.
>
> MS doesn't currently have any contact center stuff to my knowledge so that
> will have to come if they really want to contend in the PBX market.
>
> just my 2 cents
>
> Scott
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:12 AM, Tim Ritter <timritter at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I have been looking all over for a forum to ask other Cisco PBX people
> > about Microsoft and their PBX plans... this is the only one I can find
> that
> > seems right. I hope you will give me your opinions and not kill me for
> not
> > asking a technical question...
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.techworld.com.au/article/275963/microsoft_rounds_voice_assaul
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > After reading this article it is obvious to me Microsoft intends to
> replace
> > the PBX. The timeline looks like 3 to 5 years before they are in a
> position
> > to fully replace the PBX and go head to head with the leaders of the PBX
> > industry.
> >
> >
> >
> > My company is a MS house and this type system will gain a lot of interest
> > especially since it is "free", not free as in free beer but free as in
> you
> > already pay for it in your Microsoft CAL enterprise licenses so why not
> use
> > it and decommission the Costly PBX...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your thoughts and sugestions about how to combat this...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20090217/4598f543/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:18:16 -0500 (EST)
> From: Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Getting Park functionality from analog
> devices
> To: "Christopher M. Bomba" <cbomba at s4nets.com>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Message-ID:
> <
> 1094636774.5316731234891096632.JavaMail.root at superior.cs.uoguelph.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Another one of those "supported in CME but not CUCM" features. It's a shame
> really.
>
>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/voice/fxs/configuration/guide/fxssccpsplmft.html
>
>
>
> ---
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> "Bad grammar makes me [sic]" - Tshirt
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christopher M. Bomba" <cbomba at s4nets.com>
> To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 12:03:22 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: [cisco-voip] Getting Park functionality from analog devices
>
> Anyone know of a way to get some Park like functionality from analog phones
> connected to a VG224 running SCCP. The documentation says that Park is a
> supported feature but we followed up with Cisco and it is in fact not
> supported. The site had this functionality before we migrated to Cisco and
> they are getting upset.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090217/ef3dad89/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:20:06 -0500 (EST)
> From: Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] End of the PBX
> To: Scott Voll <svoll.voip at gmail.com>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Message-ID:
> <
> 1504596982.5317831234891206621.JavaMail.root at superior.cs.uoguelph.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Good points. I agree. I think MS will have to concentrate on hardening
> their systems before people will jump to running their PBX on it. Then
> again, if they can tolerate the system going down once and a while, maybe
> they won't care.
>
> The other thing is, as far as I know, MS is not going to be producing hard
> phones. Something to consider.
>
>
>
> ---
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> "Bad grammar makes me [sic]" - Tshirt
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Voll" <svoll.voip at gmail.com>
> To: "Tim Ritter" <timritter at gmail.com>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 12:05:04 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] End of the PBX
>
>
> I don't know if I can give you much.
>
> M$ does do a good job of Presence, and IM. I think that Unified messaging
> still has a little to be desired, but in 3 to 5 years I think they could
> nail that down. I do have a school using Exchange 2k7 for there UM system.
> works well for them. We use OCS for Presence and IM and am working on
> integrating it with CM when I have time.
>
> I don't think I like the idea of runing my call processing on M$ now that
> I'm on the appliance based CM. But that doesn't mean that there won't be a
> mix and match of systems in the future if both M$ and Ci$co don't do things
> to make one system or the other, truely the best.
>
> MS doesn't currently have any contact center stuff to my knowledge so that
> will have to come if they really want to contend in the PBX market.
>
> just my 2 cents
>
> Scott
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:12 AM, Tim Ritter < timritter at gmail.com > wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I have been looking all over for a forum to ask other Cisco PBX people
> about Microsoft and their PBX plans... this is the only one I can find that
> seems right. I hope you will give me your opinions and not kill me for not
> asking a technical question...
>
>
>
> http://www.techworld.com.au/article/275963/microsoft_rounds_voice_assaul
>
>
>
>
>
> After reading this article it is obvious to me Microsoft intends to replace
> the PBX. The timeline looks like 3 to 5 years before they are in a position
> to fully replace the PBX and go head to head with the leaders of the PBX
> industry.
>
>
>
> My company is a MS house and this type system will gain a lot of interest
> especially since it is "free", not free as in free beer but free as in you
> already pay for it in your Microsoft CAL enterprise licenses so why not use
> it and decommission the Costly PBX...
>
>
>
>
>
> Your thoughts and sugestions about how to combat this...
>
>
>
>
>
> Tim
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090217/1a48f38e/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:20:37 -0500
> From: Ryan Ratliff <rratliff at cisco.com>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Getting Park functionality from analog
> devices
> To: "Christopher M. Bomba" <cbomba at s4nets.com>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Message-ID: <D681EF5E-8D7E-43F1-AA46-33DFC7153A57 at cisco.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> I really thought it was supported but the docs I've found so far just
> mention that directed call park on the vg224 is not supported with
> CUCM (only CME).
>
> -Ryan
>
> On Feb 17, 2009, at 12:03 PM, Christopher M. Bomba wrote:
>
> Anyone know of a way to get some Park like functionality from analog
> phones
> connected to a VG224 running SCCP. The documentation says that Park
> is a
> supported feature but we followed up with Cisco and it is in fact not
> supported. The site had this functionality before we migrated to
> Cisco and
> they are getting upset.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:23:16 -0500
> From: "Christopher M. Bomba" <cbomba at s4nets.com>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Getting Park functionality from analog
> devices
> To: "'Ryan Ratliff'" <rratliff at cisco.com>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Message-ID: <005001c99124$6c1ab6b0$44502410$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Yeah, we thought maybe it was supported in the latest release but after
> talking to TAC they said nope. So now the users hear the night bell ring
> in
> the plant and can go over to the analog phones and use a pickup code to
> pick
> the call up but if they need to park it they can't.
>
> Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ryan Ratliff [mailto:rratliff at cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 12:21 PM
> To: Christopher M. Bomba
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Getting Park functionality from analog devices
>
> I really thought it was supported but the docs I've found so far just
> mention that directed call park on the vg224 is not supported with
> CUCM (only CME).
>
> -Ryan
>
> On Feb 17, 2009, at 12:03 PM, Christopher M. Bomba wrote:
>
> Anyone know of a way to get some Park like functionality from analog
> phones
> connected to a VG224 running SCCP. The documentation says that Park
> is a
> supported feature but we followed up with Cisco and it is in fact not
> supported. The site had this functionality before we migrated to
> Cisco and
> they are getting upset.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:22:59 -0500
> From: "James Buchanan" <jbuchanan at ctiusa.com>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] End of the PBX
> To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio at uoguelph.ca>, "Scott Voll"
> <svoll.voip at gmail.com>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Message-ID:
> <84FD0A05752C5C408C811C5D07205B25079A739A at EXCHANGE.ctiusa.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> They have partnered with Polycom for hard phones, and may I say, they?re
> fairly sweet.
>
>
>
> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 11:20 AM
> To: Scott Voll
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] End of the PBX
>
>
>
> Good points. I agree. I think MS will have to concentrate on hardening
> their systems before people will jump to running their PBX on it. Then
> again, if they can tolerate the system going down once and a while, maybe
> they won't care.
>
> The other thing is, as far as I know, MS is not going to be producing hard
> phones. Something to consider.
>
>
>
> ---
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> "Bad grammar makes me [sic]" - Tshirt
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Voll" <svoll.voip at gmail.com>
> To: "Tim Ritter" <timritter at gmail.com>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 12:05:04 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] End of the PBX
>
> I don't know if I can give you much.
>
>
>
> M$ does do a good job of Presence, and IM. I think that Unified messaging
> still has a little to be desired, but in 3 to 5 years I think they could
> nail that down. I do have a school using Exchange 2k7 for there UM system.
> works well for them. We use OCS for Presence and IM and am working on
> integrating it with CM when I have time.
>
>
>
> I don't think I like the idea of runing my call processing on M$ now that
> I'm on the appliance based CM. But that doesn't mean that there won't be a
> mix and match of systems in the future if both M$ and Ci$co don't do things
> to make one system or the other, truely the best.
>
>
>
> MS doesn't currently have any contact center stuff to my knowledge so that
> will have to come if they really want to contend in the PBX market.
>
>
>
> just my 2 cents
>
>
>
> Scott
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:12 AM, Tim Ritter <timritter at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have been looking all over for a forum to ask other Cisco PBX people
> about Microsoft and their PBX plans... this is the only one I can find that
> seems right. I hope you will give me your opinions and not kill me for not
> asking a technical question...
>
>
>
> http://www.techworld.com.au/article/275963/microsoft_rounds_voice_assaul <
> http://www.techworld.com.au/article/275963/microsoft_rounds_voice_assaul>
>
>
>
>
>
> After reading this article it is obvious to me Microsoft intends to replace
> the PBX. The timeline looks like 3 to 5 years before they are in a position
> to fully replace the PBX and go head to head with the leaders of the PBX
> industry.
>
>
>
> My company is a MS house and this type system will gain a lot of interest
> especially since it is "free", not free as in free beer but free as in you
> already pay for it in your Microsoft CAL enterprise licenses so why not use
> it and decommission the Costly PBX...
>
>
>
>
>
> Your thoughts and sugestions about how to combat this...
>
>
>
>
>
> Tim
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.10.23/1953 - Release Date: 02/17/09
> 07:07:00
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20090217/53179a31/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:30:31 -0800
> From: Scott Voll <svoll.voip at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Upgrade from CUCM 4.2.3 to 6.1.3
> To: Mayte Cantillo <mayte at fiu.edu>
> Cc: "cisco-voip at puck.nether.net" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
> Message-ID:
> <f84a38d30902170930j6c1faa4cm12cbcc1c163d7a16 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> are you AD integrated?
>
> did you setup the LDAP stuff when you got the box working? if not, then
> your user accoount is probably deleted.
>
> are all the services up and runing?
>
> Scott
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 6:30 AM, Mayte Cantillo <mayte at fiu.edu> wrote:
>
> > We just finished setting up a box on CUCM 6.1.3, and we used a DMA file
> > to import the database from CUCM 4.2.3 The only change we did when
> > importing the DMA file was to change the original hostname. We are not
> > using DNS in our environment.
> >
> > On Friday, I was able to log in to the CM admin page fine. Yesterday I
> > went to upload the license file, and I could not log in anymore. When I
> try
> > to log in to the CM admin page, I keep getting a "Database connection
> > error". I have this box set up currently in a test environment.
> >
> > Any light anyone might be able to shed will be appreciated? Not looking
> > forward to re-do this box but, needs to be finished Wednesday. L
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > - Mayte.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20090217/0a90d62d/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:50:41 -0500
> From: "Matt Slaga (US)" <Matt.Slaga at us.didata.com>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] End of the PBX
> To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio at uoguelph.ca>, "Scott Voll"
> <svoll.voip at gmail.com>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Message-ID:
> <C1FE15183DA37645BC0633BC604E44F00DB21D97 at USNAEXCH.na.didata.local>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Right now, I think the best platform is a combination of both. You can get
> the deep application integration of the Microsoft client and the solid,
> robust and best-of-class ip voice services that Cisco offers. The
> combination is truly powerful, especially with Cisco?s upcoming integration
> pieces.
>
>
>
> Microsoft is making hard phones, both USB and network phone endpoint
> devices. They are OEM through Polycom. Search google for Polycom CX700 and
> CX200. They also make the RoundTable device, which I have to admit is quite
> impressive.
>
>
>
> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 12:20 PM
> To: Scott Voll
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] End of the PBX
>
>
>
> Good points. I agree. I think MS will have to concentrate on hardening
> their systems before people will jump to running their PBX on it. Then
> again, if they can tolerate the system going down once and a while, maybe
> they won't care.
>
> The other thing is, as far as I know, MS is not going to be producing hard
> phones. Something to consider.
>
>
>
> ---
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> "Bad grammar makes me [sic]" - Tshirt
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Voll" <svoll.voip at gmail.com>
> To: "Tim Ritter" <timritter at gmail.com>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 12:05:04 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] End of the PBX
>
> I don't know if I can give you much.
>
>
>
> M$ does do a good job of Presence, and IM. I think that Unified messaging
> still has a little to be desired, but in 3 to 5 years I think they could
> nail that down. I do have a school using Exchange 2k7 for there UM system.
> works well for them. We use OCS for Presence and IM and am working on
> integrating it with CM when I have time.
>
>
>
> I don't think I like the idea of runing my call processing on M$ now that
> I'm on the appliance based CM. But that doesn't mean that there won't be a
> mix and match of systems in the future if both M$ and Ci$co don't do things
> to make one system or the other, truely the best.
>
>
>
> MS doesn't currently have any contact center stuff to my knowledge so that
> will have to come if they really want to contend in the PBX market.
>
>
>
> just my 2 cents
>
>
>
> Scott
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:12 AM, Tim Ritter <timritter at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have been looking all over for a forum to ask other Cisco PBX people
> about Microsoft and their PBX plans... this is the only one I can find that
> seems right. I hope you will give me your opinions and not kill me for not
> asking a technical question...
>
>
>
> http://www.techworld.com.au/article/275963/microsoft_rounds_voice_assaul <
> http://www.techworld.com.au/article/275963/microsoft_rounds_voice_assaul>
>
>
>
>
>
> After reading this article it is obvious to me Microsoft intends to replace
> the PBX. The timeline looks like 3 to 5 years before they are in a position
> to fully replace the PBX and go head to head with the leaders of the PBX
> industry.
>
>
>
> My company is a MS house and this type system will gain a lot of interest
> especially since it is "free", not free as in free beer but free as in you
> already pay for it in your Microsoft CAL enterprise licenses so why not use
> it and decommission the Costly PBX...
>
>
>
>
>
> Your thoughts and sugestions about how to combat this...
>
>
>
>
>
> Tim
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> 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.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20090217/ccce3dca/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:54:48 -0500
> From: "Jason Aarons (US)" <jason.aarons at us.didata.com>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] End of the PBX
> To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio at uoguelph.ca>, "Scott Voll"
> <svoll.voip at gmail.com>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Message-ID:
> <C1FE15183DA37645BC0633BC604E44F00DB21DC2 at USNAEXCH.na.didata.local>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> The irony here I?ve ran CallManger under Windows for years. Never had it
> go down except for having to apply Cisco upgrades every couple weeks
> (remember CallManager 3x, 4x you had a bug fix every 4 weeks). When
> CallManager did go down another server took over and it was mostly
> transparent to end users. I went thru Welchia/Nachia and all the other worms
> and never had an outage, I monitored security bulletins from Symantec and
> ISS and applied security updates from vendors regardless of platforms (Unix,
> Linux, Windows, OS X).
>
>
>
> You can get hardware that is everything hot swappable like the IBM x440/SAN
> and run non-stop Windows, Linux, Unix or VMWare ESX, etc.
>
>
>
> I?m used to see more application issues (memory leaks, reboots in 248 days)
> then Windows or Linux core OS itself going down once and a while!
>
>
>
> Going back to the original question, will CTOs choose to pay more to have
> Cisco over Microsoft or will they force a move to OCS as it would reduce
> their IT budget ? I can see it happening in smaller shop first that couldn?t
> afford SmartNet or CallManager to start with. This is like when Nortel was
> Legacy and Cisco could save you money with this open-platform Selsius
> Communications Box?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 12:20 PM
> To: Scott Voll
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] End of the PBX
>
>
>
> Good points. I agree. I think MS will have to concentrate on hardening
> their systems before people will jump to running their PBX on it. Then
> again, if they can tolerate the system going down once and a while, maybe
> they won't care.
>
> The other thing is, as far as I know, MS is not going to be producing hard
> phones. Something to consider.
>
>
>
> ---
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> "Bad grammar makes me [sic]" - Tshirt
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Voll" <svoll.voip at gmail.com>
> To: "Tim Ritter" <timritter at gmail.com>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 12:05:04 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] End of the PBX
>
> I don't know if I can give you much.
>
>
>
> M$ does do a good job of Presence, and IM. I think that Unified messaging
> still has a little to be desired, but in 3 to 5 years I think they could
> nail that down. I do have a school using Exchange 2k7 for there UM system.
> works well for them. We use OCS for Presence and IM and am working on
> integrating it with CM when I have time.
>
>
>
> I don't think I like the idea of runing my call processing on M$ now that
> I'm on the appliance based CM. But that doesn't mean that there won't be a
> mix and match of systems in the future if both M$ and Ci$co don't do things
> to make one system or the other, truely the best.
>
>
>
> MS doesn't currently have any contact center stuff to my knowledge so that
> will have to come if they really want to contend in the PBX market.
>
>
>
> just my 2 cents
>
>
>
> Scott
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:12 AM, Tim Ritter <timritter at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have been looking all over for a forum to ask other Cisco PBX people
> about Microsoft and their PBX plans... this is the only one I can find that
> seems right. I hope you will give me your opinions and not kill me for not
> asking a technical question...
>
>
>
> http://www.techworld.com.au/article/275963/microsoft_rounds_voice_assaul <
> http://www.techworld.com.au/article/275963/microsoft_rounds_voice_assaul>
>
>
>
>
>
> After reading this article it is obvious to me Microsoft intends to replace
> the PBX. The timeline looks like 3 to 5 years before they are in a position
> to fully replace the PBX and go head to head with the leaders of the PBX
> industry.
>
>
>
> My company is a MS house and this type system will gain a lot of interest
> especially since it is "free", not free as in free beer but free as in you
> already pay for it in your Microsoft CAL enterprise licenses so why not use
> it and decommission the Costly PBX...
>
>
>
>
>
> Your thoughts and sugestions about how to combat this...
>
>
>
>
>
> Tim
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> 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.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20090217/0bb866f4/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:58:08 -0600
> From: "Victor Rodriguez" <victor.rodriguez at neoris.com>
> Subject: [cisco-voip] Unity problem
> To: <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
> Message-ID:
> <
> 0B435E3251BF7741A5A2B860D2D2412E1AC88AE2 at MXMTYMXS02.neoris.cxnetworks.net>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi.
>
>
>
> I think this problem for you is very easy, but for me its becoming a
> real headache I have a Unity (Cisco Unity 4.0 Build 4.0(2)), the problem
> is regarding the priv1.edb file in the Microsoft exchange, the size is
> growing and growing 25G or more and the Unity stop working, some person
> tell me if I do a NTBackup for the mailbox it will fix that problem, but
> nothing happened the file keep growing, if you know how to solve this,
> please help me
>
>
>
> Victor Rodriguez
>
>
>
>
>
> #################################################################################################################
> Este documento puede incluir información confidencial y propiedad de Neoris
> y deberá ser leído solamente por la
> o las personas a quienes está dirigido. Si usted ha recibido este mensaje
> por error, por favor avise
> inmediatamente al remitente contestando y eliminando este correo. Cualquier
> punto de vista u opiniones expresadas
> en este mensaje son del remitente y no necesariamente coinciden con
> aquellas de Neoris. Este documento no deberá
> ser reproducido, copiado, distribuido, publicado, ni modificado por
> terceros sin la autorización por escrito de Neoris.
>
> Este mensaje ha sido verificado contra virus. Visítenos en www.neoris.com.
>
>
>
> This document may include proprietary and confidential information of
> Neoris, and may only be read by those
> person or persons to whom it is addressed. If you have received this e-mail
> message in error, please advise
> the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Any views
> or opinions expressed in this e-mail
> are those of the sender and do not necessarily coincide with those of
> Neoris. This document may not be reproduced,
> copied, distributed, published, modified or furnished to third parties,
> without the prior written consent of
> Neoris.
>
> This e-mail message has been scanned for viruses and cleared. Visit us at
> www.neoris.com
>
> ##################################################################################################################
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20090217/cd2625c8/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:10:58 -0500
> From: "Jason Aarons (US)" <jason.aarons at us.didata.com>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Unity problem
> To: "Victor Rodriguez" <victor.rodriguez at neoris.com>,
> <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
> Message-ID:
> <C1FE15183DA37645BC0633BC604E44F00DB21E18 at USNAEXCH.na.didata.local>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I assume you are running Unity Voicemail Only? Or is this Unified and
> messages appearing in Outlook? Cisco shipped the Exchange 2000 Enterprise
> Edition which shouldn't have an issue with mailstore size. I would suggest
> patching to 4.0(5) and see if the Unity problem stops.
>
>
>
> I would check you Windows Event Viewer logs in both Exchange and Unity to
> see what is happening. What is the exact error message when it stops?
>
>
>
> I would use Unity Reports in Web/Sa to view mailbox sizes and consider
> changing to G729 codec and adding hardware DSP resources. Lastly you can
> set mailbox size limits to reduce large mailbox offenders and also run
> ESEUTIL after hours.
>
>
>
>
> http://forum.cisco.com/eforum/servlet/NetProf?page=netprof&forum=Unified%20Communications%20and%20Video&topic=Unified%20Communications%20Applications&topicID=.ee835d2&CommCmd=MB%3Fcmd%3Dpass_through%26location%3Doutline%40%5E1%40%40.ee9cef2/0#selected_message
>
>
>
>
>
> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Victor Rodriguez
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 12:58 PM
> To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Subject: [cisco-voip] Unity problem
>
>
>
> Hi.
>
>
>
> I think this problem for you is very easy, but for me its becoming a real
> headache I have a Unity (Cisco Unity 4.0 Build 4.0(2)), the problem is
> regarding the priv1.edb file in the Microsoft exchange, the size is growing
> and growing 25G or more and the Unity stop working, some person tell me if I
> do a NTBackup for the mailbox it will fix that problem, but nothing happened
> the file keep growing, if you know how to solve this, please help me
>
>
>
> Victor Rodriguez
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Este documento puede incluir informaci?n confidencial y propiedad de Neoris
> y deber? ser le?do solamente por la o las personas a quienes est? dirigido.
> Si usted ha recibido este mensaje por error, por favor avise inmediatamente
> al remitente contestando y eliminando este correo. Cualquier punto de vista
> u opiniones expresadas en este mensaje son del remitente y no necesariamente
> coinciden con aquellas de Neoris. Este documento no deber? ser reproducido,
> copiado, distribuido, publicado, ni modificado por terceros sin la
> autorizaci?n por escrito de Neoris.
>
> Este mensaje ha sido verificado contra virus. Vis?tenos en www.neoris.com<outbind://91/
> www.neoris.com> .
>
> This document may include proprietary and confidential information of
> Neoris, and may only be read by those person or persons to whom it is
> addressed. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please advise
> the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Any views or
> opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and do not
> necessarily coincide with those of Neoris. This document may not be
> reproduced, copied, distributed, published, modified or furnished to third
> parties, without the prior written consent of Neoris.
>
> This e-mail message has been scanned for viruses and cleared. Visit us at
> www.neoris.com.
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> 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.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20090217/1e747d76/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:14:18 -0500
> From: "Biffle, Gerrad" <Gerrad.Biffle at greensboro-nc.gov>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] VG224 and Call boxes
> To: "Fuermann, Jason" <JBF005 at shsu.edu>, "c3voip" <c3voip at nc.rr.com>,
> "Peter Slow" <peter.slow at gmail.com>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Message-ID:
> <038ECED6C286904CA93C8A76ABC45DF516C05984 at VENUS.greensboronc.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> It might be a voltage issue. We were seeing low voltage issues on some
> lines we supply to Positron 911 equipment until we put the following
> command on each of the lines: alt-battery-feed feed2. If memory serves
> me correctly - this increases the idle line voltage. Not sure if it
> would help you or not - but thought I'd throw it out there as something
> you might want to take a look at.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Fuermann, Jason
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 11:23 AM
> To: 'c3voip'; 'Peter Slow'
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] VG224 and Call boxes
>
> I wish it were that simple. We've tried these in our telco room with a
> PSTN line and they work fine, but as soon as we switch back to the VG we
> get the disconnect problem again
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of c3voip
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 8:49 AM
> To: Fuermann, Jason; 'Peter Slow'
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] VG224 and Call boxes
>
> We've had similar problems and it ended up being the contacts on the
> button
> of the call boxes. Some contact cleaner and contact grease fixed the
> problem. The problem tends to arise when seasons change or humidity
> levels
> change.
>
> -C
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Fuermann, Jason
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 9:39 AM
> To: 'Peter Slow'
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] VG224 and Call boxes
>
> Call boxes, essentially speakerphones that autodial a number when you
> push a
> button. Also, yes if we use a butt set or connect a regular phone to the
> line, it works fine.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Slow [mailto:peter.slow at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 11:44 PM
> To: Fuermann, Jason
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] VG224 and Call boxes
>
> Jason,
> What are these "boxes?" If you replace them with a cheap analog
> phone, can you reproduce the problem with that?
>
> -Peter
>
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Fuermann, Jason <JBF005 at shsu.edu>
> wrote:
> > We have a bunch of call boxes that have suddenly started to hang up
> when
> the call is answered at our PD. These had been previously working fine,
> and
> the vendor even says that the VG224 is compatible with them. The only
> change
> I know about that occurred was we rebooted all the nodes in our cluster
> and
> the vg224 gateways as well. The CDR's show a disconnect code of
> "unknown" so
> I'm thinking that maybe this is a supervisory disconnect from the
> gateway.
> Does anybody have any ideas on what may be going on?
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> =======================================================
> Please note that email sent to and from this address is subject
> to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to
> third parties.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20090217/21fa3869/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:16:46 +0200
> From: "John Botha - I.T" <JohnB at jhb.mustek.co.za>
> Subject: [cisco-voip] IPCC 4 agent
> To: <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
> Message-ID:
> <6C9F4F6E5EDF234A9B521E6E2E21C126016058A6 at midrand05.mustek.local>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi All
>
>
>
>
>
> I have an ipcc call center the call does not get presented to the agent
> but it does get answer from the script the music starts to play but the
> agent does receive the call he is ready
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> John
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20090217/121b0322/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 16
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:18:17 -0800
> From: Tanner Ezell <tanner.ezell at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] IPCC 4 agent
> To: "John Botha - I.T" <JohnB at jhb.mustek.co.za>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Message-ID:
> <9c4f122d0902171018t59f52be2m1e8361182bbf4f81 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> You really need to provide us more information on whats going on, but in
> general:
> Check the script**, check the CSQ's, check the Resource Group, check the
> Resources, etc
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:16 AM, John Botha - I.T
> <JohnB at jhb.mustek.co.za>wrote:
>
> > Hi All
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I have an ipcc call center the call does not get presented to the agent
> but
> > it does get answer from the script the music starts to play but the agent
> > does receive the call he is ready
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > John
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20090217/09b03f2a/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 17
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:19:04 -0500 (EST)
> From: Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] End of the PBX
> To: James Buchanan <jbuchanan at ctiusa.com>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Message-ID:
> <
> 1598346566.5355501234894744261.JavaMail.root at superior.cs.uoguelph.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I was aware of some partnerships, but what I meant to say was there is not
> going to be any Microsoft badged phone.
>
> Has that changed?
>
> ---
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> "Bad grammar makes me [sic]" - Tshirt
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Buchanan" <jbuchanan at ctiusa.com>
> To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio at uoguelph.ca>, "Scott Voll" <
> svoll.voip at gmail.com>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 12:22:59 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] End of the PBX
>
>
>
>
> They have partnered with Polycom for hard phones, and may I say, they?re
> fairly sweet.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 11:20 AM
> To: Scott Voll
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] End of the PBX
>
>
>
>
> Good points. I agree. I think MS will have to concentrate on hardening
> their systems before people will jump to running their PBX on it. Then
> again, if they can tolerate the system going down once and a while, maybe
> they won't care.
>
> The other thing is, as far as I know, MS is not going to be producing hard
> phones. Something to consider.
>
>
>
> ---
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> "Bad grammar makes me [sic]" - Tshirt
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Voll" <svoll.voip at gmail.com>
> To: "Tim Ritter" <timritter at gmail.com>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 12:05:04 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] End of the PBX
>
>
> I don't know if I can give you much.
>
>
>
>
>
> M$ does do a good job of Presence, and IM. I think that Unified messaging
> still has a little to be desired, but in 3 to 5 years I think they could
> nail that down. I do have a school using Exchange 2k7 for there UM system.
> works well for them. We use OCS for Presence and IM and am working on
> integrating it with CM when I have time.
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't think I like the idea of runing my call processing on M$ now that
> I'm on the appliance based CM. But that doesn't mean that there won't be a
> mix and match of systems in the future if both M$ and Ci$co don't do things
> to make one system or the other, truely the best.
>
>
>
>
>
> MS doesn't currently have any contact center stuff to my knowledge so that
> will have to come if they really want to contend in the PBX market.
>
>
>
>
>
> just my 2 cents
>
>
>
>
>
> Scott
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:12 AM, Tim Ritter < timritter at gmail.com > wrote:
>
> I have been looking all over for a forum to ask other Cisco PBX people
> about Microsoft and their PBX plans... this is the only one I can find that
> seems right. I hope you will give me your opinions and not kill me for not
> asking a technical question...
>
>
>
> http://www.techworld.com.au/article/275963/microsoft_rounds_voice_assaul
>
>
>
>
>
> After reading this article it is obvious to me Microsoft intends to replace
> the PBX. The timeline looks like 3 to 5 years before they are in a position
> to fully replace the PBX and go head to head with the leaders of the PBX
> industry.
>
>
>
> My company is a MS house and this type system will gain a lot of interest
> especially since it is "free", not free as in free beer but free as in you
> already pay for it in your Microsoft CAL enterprise licenses so why not use
> it and decommission the Costly PBX...
>
>
>
>
>
> Your thoughts and sugestions about how to combat this...
>
>
>
>
>
> Tim
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.10.23/1953 - Release Date: 02/17/09
> 07:07:00
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20090217/6480fbdf/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 18
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:21:59 -0600
> From: "Carter, Bill" <bcarter at sentinel.com>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Recover AIM-CUE
> To: <svr.file at gmail.com>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Message-ID:
> <C0B4574561D1E04DBB500BA062BAF226B3194C at Mail1.sentinel.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Yes, the new CF Flash card was formatted in a Cisco Router before
> installed in the AIM-CUE.
>
>
>
> From: markju at gmail.com [mailto:markju at gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> svr.file at gmail.com
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 4:05 AM
> To: Carter, Bill
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Recover AIM-CUE
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Have you tried formating the flash card?
>
> svr
>
> 2009/2/14 Carter, Bill <bcarter at sentinel.com>
>
> I have an AIM-CUE. The flash card was faulty to I purchased a new CF
> Flash card. I am having trouble installing CUE on the AIM. I am getting
> the following error:
>
>
>
> Not a Cisco supported CF. Please use Cisco supported CF and reinstall
> the software.
>
> System Halted.
>
>
>
> I also see
>
>
>
> CF capacity not supported by this software release
>
> CF size = 2000880, supported sizes 2001888 and 1000944 blocks. Install
> correct release for this CF size
>
>
>
> Suggestions ?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090217/92fa3f3e/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 19
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:21:28 -0100
> From: Ant?nio Fragoso <Antonio.Fragoso at bancobai.cv>
> Subject: [cisco-voip] List.xml 7979 7911 Background Image for
> CallManager
> To: "cisco-voip at puck.nether.net" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
> Message-ID:
>
> <0B9DBADCC054F343A927FD1BC72C60AB06FA53FF3D at exchangemb-srv.baicv.local>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi Team
> I have a cisco 7970 and 7911 in my network
> I change the backgroud image on the 7970 and now I want to change for the
> 7911
> My question is concerning the list.xml file - I need put all information on
> the same List.xml for both or I will need another list.xml for 7911
>
>
> Antonio Fragoso
> [cid:image001.jpg at 01C99123.AFA48F10]
> BAI Cabo Verde, S.A.
> Departamento de Infraestrutura e Comunica?ao
> Edif?cio Santa Maria, 1? Andar
> Ch? de Areia - Praia, Cx. Postal - 459
> Santiago, Cabo Verde
> Tel.: +238 260 1224/26
> Fax: +238 262 2810
> antonio.fragoso at bancobai.cv<mailto:nelson.ramos at bancobai.cv>
> www.bancobai.cv<http://www.bancobai.ao/>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20090217/50bdd548/attachment-0001.html
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image001.jpg
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 3305 bytes
> Desc: image001.jpg
> URL: <
> https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20090217/50bdd548/attachment-0001.jpg
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 20
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:27:15 -0500 (EST)
> From: Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] End of the PBX
> To: "Jason Aarons (US)" <jason.aarons at us.didata.com>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Message-ID:
> <
> 1728541187.5360201234895235526.JavaMail.root at superior.cs.uoguelph.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> It's the same, but different. I think Cisco reacts a bit quicker to bugs
> and threats than MS does. It could be unsubstantiated, but I think it's
> true. So Cisco apps running ontop of Windows in my opinion are a bit more
> hardy than an MS App in my opinion. That's not always the case, but most of
> the time it is.
>
> On top of that, if MS comes out with a solution that is 10x cheaper than
> Cisco's, one of three things is going to happen:
>
> ? Cisco will come out with a powerpoint showing all the hidden costs of
> an MS deployment.
> ? Cisco will lower their price
> ? Cisco will loose market share quickly
>
> Many enterprises are watching the MS solution as it matures and will drop a
> Cisco deployment on a moments notice for many of the things you mention
> below. Even if it does mean losing a few features or only getting 4 nines
> instead of 5.
>
> Cisco will not be able to turn a blind eye on this. MS is likely going to
> be in this for the long run and will probably even lose money in the short
> term to get the market share.
>
> Remember O/S2 vs Windows? ;)
>
>
> ---
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> "Bad grammar makes me [sic]" - Tshirt
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jason Aarons (US)" <jason.aarons at us.didata.com>
> To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio at uoguelph.ca>, "Scott Voll" <
> svoll.voip at gmail.com>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 12:54:48 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] End of the PBX
>
>
>
>
> The irony here I?ve ran CallManger under Windows for years. Never had it go
> down except for having to apply Cisco upgrades every couple weeks (remember
> CallManager 3x, 4x you had a bug fix every 4 weeks). When CallManager did go
> down another server took over and it was mostly transparent to end users. I
> went thru Welchia/Nachia and all the other worms and never had an outage, I
> monitored security bulletins from Symantec and ISS and applied security
> updates from vendors regardless of platforms (Unix, Linux, Windows, OS X).
>
>
>
> You can get hardware that is everything hot swappable like the IBM x440/SAN
> and run non-stop Windows, Linux, Unix or VMWare ESX, etc.
>
>
>
> I?m used to see more application issues (memory leaks, reboots in 248 days)
> then Windows or Linux core OS itself going down once and a while!
>
>
>
> Going back to the original question, will CTOs choose to pay more to have
> Cisco over Microsoft or will they force a move to OCS as it would reduce
> their IT budget ? I can see it happening in smaller shop first that couldn?t
> afford SmartNet or CallManager to start with. This is like when Nortel was
> Legacy and Cisco could save you money with this open-platform Selsius
> Communications Box?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 12:20 PM
> To: Scott Voll
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] End of the PBX
>
>
>
>
> Good points. I agree. I think MS will have to concentrate on hardening
> their systems before people will jump to running their PBX on it. Then
> again, if they can tolerate the system going down once and a while, maybe
> they won't care.
>
> The other thing is, as far as I know, MS is not going to be producing hard
> phones. Something to consider.
>
>
>
> ---
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> "Bad grammar makes me [sic]" - Tshirt
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Voll" <svoll.voip at gmail.com>
> To: "Tim Ritter" <timritter at gmail.com>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 12:05:04 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] End of the PBX
>
>
> I don't know if I can give you much.
>
>
>
>
>
> M$ does do a good job of Presence, and IM. I think that Unified messaging
> still has a little to be desired, but in 3 to 5 years I think they could
> nail that down. I do have a school using Exchange 2k7 for there UM system.
> works well for them. We use OCS for Presence and IM and am working on
> integrating it with CM when I have time.
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't think I like the idea of runing my call processing on M$ now that
> I'm on the appliance based CM. But that doesn't mean that there won't be a
> mix and match of systems in the future if both M$ and Ci$co don't do things
> to make one system or the other, truely the best.
>
>
>
>
>
> MS doesn't currently have any contact center stuff to my knowledge so that
> will have to come if they really want to contend in the PBX market.
>
>
>
>
>
> just my 2 cents
>
>
>
>
>
> Scott
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:12 AM, Tim Ritter < timritter at gmail.com > wrote:
>
> I have been looking all over for a forum to ask other Cisco PBX people
> about Microsoft and their PBX plans... this is the only one I can find that
> seems right. I hope you will give me your opinions and not kill me for not
> asking a technical question...
>
>
>
> http://www.techworld.com.au/article/275963/microsoft_rounds_voice_assaul
>
>
>
>
>
> After reading this article it is obvious to me Microsoft intends to replace
> the PBX. The timeline looks like 3 to 5 years before they are in a position
> to fully replace the PBX and go head to head with the leaders of the PBX
> industry.
>
>
>
> My company is a MS house and this type system will gain a lot of interest
> especially since it is "free", not free as in free beer but free as in you
> already pay for it in your Microsoft CAL enterprise licenses so why not use
> it and decommission the Costly PBX...
>
>
>
>
>
> Your thoughts and sugestions about how to combat this...
>
>
>
>
>
> Tim
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20090217/10308680/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 21
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:30:48 -0500
> From: "c3voip" <c3voip at nc.rr.com>
> Subject: [cisco-voip] Convert IPCC 4 scripts to CUCCX 7
> To: <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
> Message-ID: <00ca01c9912d$daab3920$9001ab60$@rr.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> We are getting a new CUCCX 7.0 box and would like to migrate some scripts
> from our IPCC Ent 4 cluster to it.
>
>
>
> Is there a way to convert IPCC Ent. 4 scripts to CUCCX?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> -C
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20090217/49e385d1/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 22
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:34:40 -0700
> From: Johnny <randvines at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] IPCC 4 agent
> To: "'Tanner Ezell'" <tanner.ezell at gmail.com>, "'John Botha - I.T'"
> <JohnB at jhb.mustek.co.za>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Message-ID: <014401c9912e$66761e70$33625b50$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> If the agent isn't receiving the call its not being sent to the CSQ, that
> is
> assuming that the CSQ has been setup correctly.
>
>
>
> The agent needs to be assigned to the CSQ and the "select resource" step
> needs to point to the CSQ also. If you are using the default ICD.aef script
> you need to go to the applications screen and change the CSQ parameter to
> the CSQ that you created.
>
>
>
> Hope this helps, I'm only assuming what could be wrong. Need more
> information about the setup if possible.
>
>
>
> Kind Regards,
>
>
>
> Johnny
>
>
>
> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Tanner Ezell
> Sent: 17 February 2009 11:18
> To: John Botha - I.T
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] IPCC 4 agent
>
>
>
> You really need to provide us more information on whats going on, but in
> general:
> Check the script**, check the CSQ's, check the Resource Group, check the
> Resources, etc
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:16 AM, John Botha - I.T <JohnB at jhb.mustek.co.za
> >
> wrote:
>
> Hi All
>
>
>
>
>
> I have an ipcc call center the call does not get presented to the agent but
> it does get answer from the script the music starts to play but the agent
> does receive the call he is ready
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> John
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090217/a0bc4c8e/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 23
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:55:03 -0600
> From: Jack Martin <jackm at tushaus.com>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] List.xml 7979 7911 Background Image for
> CallManager
> To: Ant?nio Fragoso <Antonio.Fragoso at bancobai.cv>,
> "cisco-voip at puck.nether.net" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
> Message-ID:
> <86DD253A50828C40AB51057072CC6CD03901386338 at SARGE.Tushaus.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/voice_ip_comm/cuipph/7906g_7911g/5_0/sip/english/administration/guide/11ag50si.pdf
>
> Jack Martin, CCVP
> Network Engineer
> Tushaus Computer Services
> 10400 Innovation Drive, Ste 100
> Milwaukee, WI 53226
> 414.908.2222 Helpdesk
> 414.908.2267 Work
> 414.908.4467 Fax
> 414.477.6990 Cell
>
> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Ant?nio Fragoso
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 12:21 PM
> To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Subject: [cisco-voip] List.xml 7979 7911 Background Image for CallManager
>
>
> Hi Team
> I have a cisco 7970 and 7911 in my network
> I change the backgroud image on the 7970 and now I want to change for the
> 7911
> My question is concerning the list.xml file - I need put all information on
> the same List.xml for both or I will need another list.xml for 7911
>
>
> Antonio Fragoso
> [cid:image001.jpg at 01C990FE.F2CA31C0]
> BAI Cabo Verde, S.A.
> Departamento de Infraestrutura e Comunica?ao
> Edif?cio Santa Maria, 1? Andar
> Ch? de Areia - Praia, Cx. Postal - 459
> Santiago, Cabo Verde
> Tel.: +238 260 1224/26
> Fax: +238 262 2810
> antonio.fragoso at bancobai.cv<mailto:nelson.ramos at bancobai.cv>
> www.bancobai.cv<http://www.bancobai.ao/>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20090217/59a55a96/attachment-0001.html
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image001.jpg
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 3305 bytes
> Desc: image001.jpg
> URL: <
> https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20090217/59a55a96/attachment-0001.jpg
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 24
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 14:01:37 -0500
> From: "Matt Slaga (US)" <Matt.Slaga at us.didata.com>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] End of the PBX
> To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio at uoguelph.ca>, "James Buchanan"
> <jbuchanan at ctiusa.com>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Message-ID:
> <C1FE15183DA37645BC0633BC604E44F00DB8DE04 at USNAEXCH.na.didata.local>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> The Roundtable has the Microsoft logo. Your are correct on the others,
> they read Polycom, Nortel or LG.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 1:19 PM
> To: James Buchanan
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] End of the PBX
>
>
>
> I was aware of some partnerships, but what I meant to say was there is not
> going to be any Microsoft badged phone.
>
> Has that changed?
>
> ---
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> "Bad grammar makes me [sic]" - Tshirt
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Buchanan" <jbuchanan at ctiusa.com>
> To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio at uoguelph.ca>, "Scott Voll" <
> svoll.voip at gmail.com>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 12:22:59 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] End of the PBX
>
> They have partnered with Polycom for hard phones, and may I say, they?re
> fairly sweet.
>
>
>
> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 11:20 AM
> To: Scott Voll
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] End of the PBX
>
>
>
> Good points. I agree. I think MS will have to concentrate on hardening
> their systems before people will jump to running their PBX on it. Then
> again, if they can tolerate the system going down once and a while, maybe
> they won't care.
>
> The other thing is, as far as I know, MS is not going to be producing hard
> phones. Something to consider.
>
>
>
> ---
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> "Bad grammar makes me [sic]" - Tshirt
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Voll" <svoll.voip at gmail.com>
> To: "Tim Ritter" <timritter at gmail.com>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 12:05:04 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] End of the PBX
>
> I don't know if I can give you much.
>
>
>
> M$ does do a good job of Presence, and IM. I think that Unified messaging
> still has a little to be desired, but in 3 to 5 years I think they could
> nail that down. I do have a school using Exchange 2k7 for there UM system.
> works well for them. We use OCS for Presence and IM and am working on
> integrating it with CM when I have time.
>
>
>
> I don't think I like the idea of runing my call processing on M$ now that
> I'm on the appliance based CM. But that doesn't mean that there won't be a
> mix and match of systems in the future if both M$ and Ci$co don't do things
> to make one system or the other, truely the best.
>
>
>
> MS doesn't currently have any contact center stuff to my knowledge so that
> will have to come if they really want to contend in the PBX market.
>
>
>
> just my 2 cents
>
>
>
> Scott
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:12 AM, Tim Ritter <timritter at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have been looking all over for a forum to ask other Cisco PBX people
> about Microsoft and their PBX plans... this is the only one I can find that
> seems right. I hope you will give me your opinions and not kill me for not
> asking a technical question...
>
>
>
> http://www.techworld.com.au/article/275963/microsoft_rounds_voice_assaul <
> http://www.techworld.com.au/article/275963/microsoft_rounds_voice_assaul>
>
>
>
>
>
> After reading this article it is obvious to me Microsoft intends to replace
> the PBX. The timeline looks like 3 to 5 years before they are in a position
> to fully replace the PBX and go head to head with the leaders of the PBX
> industry.
>
>
>
> My company is a MS house and this type system will gain a lot of interest
> especially since it is "free", not free as in free beer but free as in you
> already pay for it in your Microsoft CAL enterprise licenses so why not use
> it and decommission the Costly PBX...
>
>
>
>
>
> Your thoughts and sugestions about how to combat this...
>
>
>
>
>
> Tim
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.10.23/1953 - Release Date: 02/17/09
> 07:07:00
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> 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.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20090217/f22eb9b7/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 25
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:27:27 -0800
> From: Scott Voll <svoll.voip at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Convert IPCC 4 scripts to CUCCX 7
> To: c3voip <c3voip at nc.rr.com>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Message-ID:
> <f84a38d30902171227p225712cdoe51b8c4960c28d93 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> CCx 4 to 5 was just a matter of opening in the editor and resaving. I
> would
> thing 7 would most likely be the same.
>
> Scott
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:30 AM, c3voip <c3voip at nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > We are getting a new CUCCX 7.0 box and would like to migrate some
> scripts
> > from our IPCC Ent 4 cluster to it.
> >
> >
> >
> > Is there a way to convert IPCC Ent. 4 scripts to CUCCX?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > -C
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20090217/d7cb43aa/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 26
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 15:28:37 -0500
> From: Matthew Loraditch <MLoraditch at heliontechnologies.com>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Convert IPCC 4 scripts to CUCCX 7
> To: Scott Voll <svoll.voip at gmail.com>, c3voip <c3voip at nc.rr.com>
> Cc: "cisco-voip at puck.nether.net" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
> Message-ID:
> <530C67FE62559C42857C78B962454E6202233E8D23 at hermes.helion.local>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> That is how I did a conversion
>
>
> Matthew Loraditch
> 1965 Greenspring Drive
> Timonium, MD 21093
> support at heliontechnologies.com<mailto:support at heliontechnologies.com>
> (p) (410) 252-8830
> (F) (443) 541-1593
>
> Visit us at www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com>
> Support Issue? Email support at heliontechnologies.com<mailto:
> support at heliontechnologies.com> for fast assistance!
>
> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Scott Voll
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 3:27 PM
> To: c3voip
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Convert IPCC 4 scripts to CUCCX 7
>
> CCx 4 to 5 was just a matter of opening in the editor and resaving. I
> would thing 7 would most likely be the same.
>
> Scott
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:30 AM, c3voip <c3voip at nc.rr.com<mailto:
> c3voip at nc.rr.com>> wrote:
>
> We are getting a new CUCCX 7.0 box and would like to migrate some scripts
> from our IPCC Ent 4 cluster to it.
>
>
>
> Is there a way to convert IPCC Ent. 4 scripts to CUCCX?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> -C
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto: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/20090217/f6fa5f51/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 27
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:07:55 -0500
> From: "James Buchanan" <jbuchanan at ctiusa.com>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Convert IPCC 4 scripts to CUCCX 7
> To: "Matthew Loraditch" <MLoraditch at heliontechnologies.com>, "Scott
> Voll" <svoll.voip at gmail.com>, "c3voip" <c3voip at nc.rr.com>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Message-ID:
> <84FD0A05752C5C408C811C5D07205B25079A75DF at EXCHANGE.ctiusa.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Me too. Worked great. I did not find anything in the scripts that didn't
> work with UCCX 7.
>
>
>
> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Matthew
> Loraditch
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 2:29 PM
> To: Scott Voll; c3voip
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Convert IPCC 4 scripts to CUCCX 7
>
>
>
> That is how I did a conversion
>
>
>
>
>
> Matthew Loraditch
> 1965 Greenspring Drive
>
> Timonium, MD 21093
> support at heliontechnologies.com <mailto:support at heliontechnologies.com>
> (p) (410) 252-8830
> (F) (443) 541-1593
>
> Visit us at www.heliontechnologies.com
> <http://www.heliontechnologies.com>
> Support Issue? Email support at heliontechnologies.com
> <mailto:support at heliontechnologies.com> for fast assistance!
>
>
>
> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Scott Voll
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 3:27 PM
> To: c3voip
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Convert IPCC 4 scripts to CUCCX 7
>
>
>
> CCx 4 to 5 was just a matter of opening in the editor and resaving. I
> would thing 7 would most likely be the same.
>
>
>
> Scott
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:30 AM, c3voip <c3voip at nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> We are getting a new CUCCX 7.0 box and would like to migrate some
> scripts from our IPCC Ent 4 cluster to it.
>
>
>
> Is there a way to convert IPCC Ent. 4 scripts to CUCCX?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> -C
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.10.23/1953 - Release Date:
> 02/17/09 07:07:00
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20090217/c7ae6bc1/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 28
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:48:33 -0800 (PST)
> From: Vignesh <sathia_vign at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Unity problem
> To: Victor Rodriguez <victor.rodriguez at neoris.com>,
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Message-ID: <385521.5149.qm at web56802.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I would recommend you to delete the E000.....logs and other edb files from
> the /exchsvr/mdbdata folder. Stop exchange information store and restart the
> service after deleting the logs. You may have to restart exchange after
> doing this.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Victor Rodriguez <victor.rodriguez at neoris.com>
> To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 9:51:23 PM
> Subject: [cisco-voip] Unity problem
>
>
> Hi.
>
> I think this problem for you is very easy, but for me its
> becoming a real headache I have a Unity (Cisco
> Unity 4.0 Build 4.0(2)), the problem is regarding the priv1.edb file
> in the Microsoft exchange, the size is growing and growing 25G or more and
> the
> Unity stop working, some person tell me if I do a NTBackup for the mailbox
> it
> will fix that problem, but nothing happened the file keep growing, if you
> know
> how to solve this, please help me
>
> Victor Rodriguez
> ________________________________
> Este documento puede incluir
> informaci?n confidencial y propiedad de Neoris y deber? ser le?do solamente
> por
> la o las personas a quienes est? dirigido. Si usted ha recibido este
> mensaje por
> error, por favor avise inmediatamente al remitente contestando y eliminando
> este
> correo. Cualquier punto de vista u opiniones expresadas en este mensaje son
> del
> remitente y no necesariamente coinciden con aquellas de Neoris. Este
> documento
> no deber? ser reproducido, copiado, distribuido, publicado, ni modificado
> por
> terceros sin la autorizaci?n por escrito de Neoris.Este mensaje ha sido
> verificado contra virus. Vis?tenos en www.neoris.com.
> This document may include proprietary and
> confidential information of Neoris, and may only be read by those person or
> persons to whom it is addressed. If you have received this e-mail message
> in
> error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this
> message. Any views or opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the
> sender and do not necessarily coincide with those of Neoris. This document
> may
> not be reproduced, copied, distributed, published, modified or furnished to
> third parties, without the prior written consent of Neoris.
> This e-mail message has been
> scanned for viruses and cleared. Visit us at www.neoris.com.
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20090217/4ba678cd/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 29
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:12:07 -0500 (EST)
> From: "Rasim Duric" <rduric at uoguelph.ca>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Unity problem
> To: "'Victor Rodriguez'" <victor.rodriguez at neoris.com>,
> <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
> Message-ID: <005701c9914c$c5ae8260$510b8720$@ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I run NTBackup every day and once per year I do defragment Exchange
> databases. I just follow this Microsoft Knowledge Base Article:
>
>
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/328804
>
>
>
>
>
> Rasim Duric
>
> Network Analyst (CCS)
>
> University of Guelph
>
> Guelph, N1G 2W1, ON
>
> 519-824-4120x53146
>
> rduric at uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Victor Rodriguez
> Sent: February-17-09 12:58
> To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Subject: [cisco-voip] Unity problem
>
>
>
> Hi.
>
>
>
> I think this problem for you is very easy, but for me its becoming a real
> headache I have a Unity (Cisco Unity 4.0 Build 4.0(2)), the problem is
> regarding the priv1.edb file in the Microsoft exchange, the size is
> growing and growing 25G or more and the Unity stop working, some person
> tell me if I do a NTBackup for the mailbox it will fix that problem, but
> nothing happened the file keep growing, if you know how to solve this,
> please help me
>
>
>
> Victor Rodriguez
>
>
>
> _____
>
> Este documento puede incluir informaci?n confidencial y propiedad de
> Neoris y deber? ser le?do solamente por la o las personas a quienes est?
> dirigido. Si usted ha recibido este mensaje por error, por favor avise
> inmediatamente al remitente contestando y eliminando este correo.
> Cualquier punto de vista u opiniones expresadas en este mensaje son del
> remitente y no necesariamente coinciden con aquellas de Neoris. Este
> documento no deber? ser reproducido, copiado, distribuido, publicado, ni
> modificado por terceros sin la autorizaci?n por escrito de Neoris.
>
> Este mensaje ha sido verificado contra virus. Vis?tenos en
> <outbind://91/www.neoris.com> www.neoris.com.
>
> This document may include proprietary and confidential information of
> Neoris, and may only be read by those person or persons to whom it is
> addressed. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please
> advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Any
> views or opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and do
> not necessarily coincide with those of Neoris. This document may not be
> reproduced, copied, distributed, published, modified or furnished to third
> parties, without the prior written consent of Neoris.
>
> This e-mail message has been scanned for viruses and cleared. Visit us at
> www.neoris.com.
>
> _____
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20090217/97cd203f/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 30
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:23:05 -0600
> From: "Michael Back" <Michael.Back at nisd.net>
> Subject: [cisco-voip] Billing server setup
> To: <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
> Message-ID: <499AE469.A494.00A3.0 at nisd.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> I am trying to figure out how the CDR export for billing servers works
> on UCM7. I have an FTP server setup to test this temporarily. I have
> configured the billing application server parameters with the IP,
> username, password, and path. Protocol is FTP for now. Enterprise
> parameters for CDR is set to 1. I made a few calls on the cluster, but
> no files are being exported to the ftp. I tested ftp access using the
> same username and password, and everything works fine. What am I doing
> wrong? Thanks for your help.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 31
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 14:32:58 -0800
> From: Scott Voll <svoll.voip at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Convert IPCC 4 scripts to CUCCX 7
> To: James Buchanan <jbuchanan at ctiusa.com>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net, Matthew Loraditch
> <MLoraditch at heliontechnologies.com>
> Message-ID:
> <f84a38d30902171432j3ebfe777x306a1f2d246d3b3e at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> just remember if your using any external stuff that you have to have it
> there. I use the holiday XML file and forgot to put it back on the new
> server and it kept failing. Took me a while to figure it out.
>
> =)
>
> Scott
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 1:07 PM, James Buchanan <jbuchanan at ctiusa.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Me too. Worked great. I did not find anything in the scripts that didn't
> > work with UCCX 7.
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
> > cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] *On Behalf Of *Matthew Loraditch
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 17, 2009 2:29 PM
> > *To:* Scott Voll; c3voip
> >
> > *Cc:* cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> > *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Convert IPCC 4 scripts to CUCCX 7
> >
> >
> >
> > That is how I did a conversion
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *Matthew Loraditch*
> > 1965 Greenspring Drive
> >
> > Timonium, MD 21093
> > support at heliontechnologies.com
> > (p) (410) 252-8830
> > (F) (443) 541-1593
> >
> > Visit us at www.heliontechnologies.com
> > Support Issue? Email support at heliontechnologies.com for fast assistance!
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
> > cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] *On Behalf Of *Scott Voll
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 17, 2009 3:27 PM
> > *To:* c3voip
> > *Cc:* cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> > *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Convert IPCC 4 scripts to CUCCX 7
> >
> >
> >
> > CCx 4 to 5 was just a matter of opening in the editor and resaving. I
> > would thing 7 would most likely be the same.
> >
> >
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:30 AM, c3voip <c3voip at nc.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > We are getting a new CUCCX 7.0 box and would like to migrate some scripts
> > from our IPCC Ent 4 cluster to it.
> >
> >
> >
> > Is there a way to convert IPCC Ent. 4 scripts to CUCCX?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > -C
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-voip mailing list
> > cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> >
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.10.23/1953 - Release Date:
> 02/17/09
> > 07:07:00
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20090217/1c5da087/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 32
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:16:34 -0600
> From: Samuel Womack <womacksamuel at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Billing server setup
> To: Michael Back <Michael.Back at nisd.net>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Message-ID: <323ACFD2-08E3-48B1-8E3F-8B56806CAC9C at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> How about the Service Parameter...CDR is Disabled by default..
>
> This setting is near the Top...
>
> On Feb 17, 2009, at 4:23 PM, Michael Back wrote:
>
> > I am trying to figure out how the CDR export for billing servers works
> > on UCM7. I have an FTP server setup to test this temporarily. I have
> > configured the billing application server parameters with the IP,
> > username, password, and path. Protocol is FTP for now. Enterprise
> > parameters for CDR is set to 1. I made a few calls on the cluster,
> > but
> > no files are being exported to the ftp. I tested ftp access using the
> > same username and password, and everything works fine. What am I
> > doing
> > wrong? Thanks for your help.
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-voip mailing list
> > cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 33
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:11:41 -0600
> From: "Michael Back" <Michael.Back at nisd.net>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Billing server setup
> To: <womacksamuel at gmail.com>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Message-ID: <499B19FD020000A300001551 at gwgwiavs.nisd.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> I checked the service parameters and CDR is enabled.
>
> >>> Samuel Womack <womacksamuel at gmail.com> 02/17/09 6:16 PM >>>
> How about the Service Parameter...CDR is Disabled by default..
>
> This setting is near the Top...
>
> On Feb 17, 2009, at 4:23 PM, Michael Back wrote:
>
> > I am trying to figure out how the CDR export for billing servers works
> > on UCM7. I have an FTP server setup to test this temporarily. I have
> > configured the billing application server parameters with the IP,
> > username, password, and path. Protocol is FTP for now. Enterprise
> > parameters for CDR is set to 1. I made a few calls on the cluster,
> > but
> > no files are being exported to the ftp. I tested ftp access using the
> > same username and password, and everything works fine. What am I
> > doing
> > wrong? Thanks for your help.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 34
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 22:38:23 -0500
> From: Ed Leatherman <ealeatherman at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Billing server setup
> To: Michael Back <Michael.Back at nisd.net>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Message-ID:
> <94a1afde0902171938i2658ee1cjbf2c926e20f4534b at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> the CDR service parameters have to be set on each server, it isnt
> clusterwide (unless it was changed in 7)
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Michael Back <Michael.Back at nisd.net>
> wrote:
>
> > I am trying to figure out how the CDR export for billing servers works
> > on UCM7. I have an FTP server setup to test this temporarily. I have
> > configured the billing application server parameters with the IP,
> > username, password, and path. Protocol is FTP for now. Enterprise
> > parameters for CDR is set to 1. I made a few calls on the cluster, but
> > no files are being exported to the ftp. I tested ftp access using the
> > same username and password, and everything works fine. What am I doing
> > wrong? Thanks for your help.
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-voip mailing list
> > cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Ed Leatherman
> Assistant Director, Voice Services
> West Virginia University
> Telecommunications and Network Operations
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20090217/f1a7d4c4/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 35
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 21:41:30 -0700
> From: Inder Singh <isingh68 at gmail.com>
> Subject: [cisco-voip]
>
> <0B9DBADCC054F343A927FD1BC72C60AB06FA53FE58 at exchangemb-srv.baicv.local>
>
> To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Message-ID:
> <ad6d8f230902172041t1e7d45a9o860e8c981a070932 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hello Antonio:
>
> Your situation as you describe it...
>
> H232 voice Gateway - E1 PRI
> PTSN num - 2602300
> Phone ext num 3xx
> I want that when peopel call 2603301 it go to ext 301 and so on
>
> Not knowing what you have configured so far I will start from the
> beginning. Pardon me if I am repeating things you have already done...
>
> 1. Configure a pots dial peer to accept DID:
> dial-peer voice x pots
> direct-inward-dial
> incoming called-number .
>
> 2. Configure a voip dial peer to have the CallManager process incoming
> calls
> dial-peer voice y voip
> destination-pattern 26023..
> session target ipv4:your_call_manager_ip
>
> 3. Configure a translation pattern and specify "26023XX", in the called
> party transformation text box specify "3XX"
>
> 4. Configure phone with 3xx numbers
>
> This should do the trick for inbound calling.
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Regards. Inder.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20090217/f1322b5c/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 36
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 21:43:32 -0700
> From: Inder Singh <isingh68 at gmail.com>
> Subject: [cisco-voip] DID
> To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Message-ID:
> <ad6d8f230902172043q71b3b43ep8fa3567733c5c648 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> >
> > Hello Antonio:
> >
> > Your situation as you describe it...
> >
> > H232 voice Gateway - E1 PRI
> > PTSN num - 2602300
> > Phone ext num 3xx
> > I want that when peopel call 2603301 it go to ext 301 and so on
> >
> > Not knowing what you have configured so far I will start from the
> > beginning. Pardon me if I am repeating things you have already done...
> >
> > 1. Configure a pots dial peer to accept DID:
> > dial-peer voice x pots
> > direct-inward-dial
> > incoming called-number .
> >
> > 2. Configure a voip dial peer to have the CallManager process incoming
> > calls
> > dial-peer voice y voip
> > destination-pattern 26023..
> > session target ipv4:your_call_manager_ip
> >
> > 3. Configure a translation pattern and specify "26023XX", in the called
> > party transformation text box specify "3XX"
> >
> > 4. Configure phone with 3xx numbers
> >
> > This should do the trick for inbound calling.
> >
> > I hope this helps.
> >
> > Regards. Inder.
> >
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20090217/608dcd6d/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 37
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 22:00:59 -0700
> From: Inder Singh <isingh68 at gmail.com>
> Subject: [cisco-voip] VG224 and Call boxes
> To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Message-ID:
> <ad6d8f230902172100g20badadfgd9e1f1c5d0c3e31f at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Have you checked for a codec mismatch?
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20090217/35d72c13/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 38
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 22:05:20 -0700
> From: Inder Singh <isingh68 at gmail.com>
> Subject: [cisco-voip] NTP Reference for IP Phones
> To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Message-ID:
> <ad6d8f230902172105g484b3e7er179b1c0c0c5666e at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I had some clock issues are discovered that the phones sync with the
> CallManager they are registered with. So as long as the callmanager they
> are registered to has the correct time the phones will also.
>
> After fixed the issue with the CallManager clock I had to reset the phone
> in
> order to correct the time on the phone.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20090217/9ffc50f1/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 39
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 22:14:36 -0700
> From: Inder Singh <isingh68 at gmail.com>
> Subject: [cisco-voip] CME group phone broadcast
> To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Message-ID:
> <ad6d8f230902172114p18eb4f35o149b705482e0f05f at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> You need to configure the same phone number on every phone or overlay a
> single number on each phone. When said number is dialed all phones will
> ring.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20090217/0157a3e1/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 40
> Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 10:54:41 +0530
> From: Aman Chugh <aman.chugh at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Switch replacement causes one-way audio?
> To: "Biffle, Gerrad" <Gerrad.Biffle at greensboro-nc.gov>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Message-ID:
> <d4c697ad0902172124k4f7f8a34k4685e0c46c6ccb9f at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> I had this issue occur once where we narrowed it down to a particular
> switch
> , we rebooted that switch to correct the issue which I suspect was an arp
> issue.
> Aman
>
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Scott Voll <svoll.voip at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I would check to make sure it's not a routing issue.
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Biffle, Gerrad <
> > Gerrad.Biffle at greensboro-nc.gov> wrote:
> >
> >> This past weekend our network team replaced some aging 4006s with 3750
> >> stacks. Since then we've had users complaining that callers on the far
> >> end cannot hear them. Our first thought was to hard code the
> switch-port
> >> to 100/full (we're using 7960Gs) ? and that didn't seem to help.
> >>
> >> Does anyone have any ideas on what we could check before opening a TAC
> >> case tomorrow?
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> =======================================================
> >> Please note that email sent to and from this address is subject
> >> to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to
> >> third parties.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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/20090218/d85f6e0d/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 41
> Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 07:55:46 -0500
> From: Wes Sisk <wsisk at cisco.com>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Billing server setup
> To: Ed Leatherman <ealeatherman at gmail.com>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net, Michael Back <Michael.Back at nisd.net>
> Message-ID: <499C0552.6060903 at cisco.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> another option is cdr file duration. this defaults to 60 seconds. some
> customers set it to the equivalent of 24 hours. with that configuration
> a file is only generated once ever 24 hours. once a file is completed
> it would be transferred to billing server.
>
> On Tuesday, February 17, 2009 10:38:23 PM, Ed Leatherman
> <ealeatherman at gmail.com> wrote:
> > the CDR service parameters have to be set on each server, it isnt
> > clusterwide (unless it was changed in 7)
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Michael Back <Michael.Back at nisd.net
> > <mailto:Michael.Back at nisd.net>> wrote:
> >
> > I am trying to figure out how the CDR export for billing servers
> works
> > on UCM7. I have an FTP server setup to test this temporarily. I
> have
> > configured the billing application server parameters with the IP,
> > username, password, and path. Protocol is FTP for now. Enterprise
> > parameters for CDR is set to 1. I made a few calls on the
> > cluster, but
> > no files are being exported to the ftp. I tested ftp access using
> the
> > same username and password, and everything works fine. What am I
> > doing
> > wrong? Thanks for your help.
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-voip mailing list
> > cisco-voip at puck.nether.net <mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ed Leatherman
> > Assistant Director, Voice Services
> > West Virginia University
> > Telecommunications and Network Operations
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20090218/a7450706/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 42
> Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:01:00 -0500
> From: "Miller, Steve" <MillerS at DicksteinShapiro.COM>
> Subject: [cisco-voip] When is End of Life for Call Manager 4.1?
> To: "cisco-voip at puck-nether.net" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
> Message-ID: <418329B7ED67E64BBD2BAA97078D70D009DF2C at DCEX2.DSMO.COM>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I thought it was May, but now I am hearing July?
>
>
> Steve Miller
> Telecom Engineer
> Dickstein Shapiro LLP
> 1825 Eye Street NW | Washington, DC 20006
> Tel (202) 420-3370| Fax (202) 330-5607
> MillerS at dicksteinshapiro.com
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> This e-mail message and any attached files are confidential and are
> intended solely for the use of the addressee(s)
> named above. This communication may contain material protected by
> attorney-client, work product, or other
> privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or person responsible for
> delivering this confidential
> communication to the intended recipient, you have received this
> communication in error, and any review, use,
> dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying, or other distribution of this
> e-mail message and any attached files
> is strictly prohibited. Dickstein Shapiro reserves the right to monitor any
> communication that is created,
> received, or sent on its network. If you have received this confidential
> communication in error, please notify the
> sender immediately by reply e-mail message and permanently delete the
> original message.
>
> To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to
> postmaster at dicksteinshapiro.com
>
> Dickstein Shapiro LLP
> http://www.DicksteinShapiro.com <http://www.dicksteinshapiro.com/>
>
>
> ==============================================================================
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20090218/7dd68b15/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 43
> Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:57:59 +0530
> From: Aman Chugh <aman.chugh at gmail.com>
> Subject: [cisco-voip] Call Forward on failure
> To: cisco-voip mailinglist <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
> Message-ID:
> <d4c697ad0902180527g73cb7586le9e8f76148681f8a at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I n...
>
> [Message clipped]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20090218/4870628d/attachment.html>
More information about the cisco-voip
mailing list