[cisco-voip] cisco-voip Digest, Vol 86, Issue 2 SIP vs SCCP integration for CUCM and Unity Connection
Billie Brown III
trip.brown at duke.edu
Mon Dec 6 14:41:56 EST 2010
Lelio,
We have learned that we cannot set message notification via the TUI with
SIP integration because SIP sends the entire digit string as the
destination address. In other words, if I use the TUI to set up pager
notification to my paging system and add pauses (#), then the dialback
number that I wish to display on the pager, Unity Connection includes the
pauses and the dialback number in the SIP destination address and the call
fails. This is the only thing we have found so far that is a negative,
but for us it was a deal breaker since we support several hospitals who
rotate on call duties beteen staff. We felt it was too much to ask them
to go to a web page to set notification when they have done it for yers
via TUI in the legacy system.
If anyone can come up with a work around for this we would be grateful.
Trip Brown
Sr. IT Analyst
Duke University
Office of Information Technology
334 Blackwell Street Suite 2111, Durham, NC 7701
+1-919-668-9228
On 12/2/10 12:00 PM, "cisco-voip-request at puck.nether.net"
<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 soit is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of cisco-voip digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Customizing Unity Connection Failed delivery message (Mike Lydick)
> 2. Re: SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and UCxN v7
> integration (Mike Lydick)
> 3. Re: SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and UCxN v7
> integration (Bill Simon)
> 4. Re: cisco-voip Digest, Vol 86, Issue 1 (Marcus Queiroz)
> 5. Cisco 2801 supports up to how many mb? (Marcus Queiroz)
> 6. Re: Cisco 2801 supports up to how many mb? (Scott Voll)
> 7. creating vs routing over ICTs (Lelio Fulgenzi)
> 8. Re: creating vs routing over ICTs (Wes Sisk)
> 9. Anyone install on a IBM x3650-m2 (Christopher Trown)
> 10. MCS-7828 support UCCX 8.0 (Carter, Bill)
> 11. Re: Customizing Unity Connection Failed delivery message
> (Carter, Bill)
> 12. Re: creating vs routing over ICTs (Carter, Bill)
> 13. Re: MCS-7828 support UCCX 8.0 (Ki Wi)
> 14. MCS-7845-I2-CCX2 (Tim Frazee)
> 15. Cisco 300 Series (David Zhars)
> 16. Re: Anyone install on a IBM x3650-m2 (Ryan Ratliff)
> 17. Re: creating vs routing over ICTs (Wes Sisk)
> 18. how to gather trace files on cucm v7....or which files
> rather... (Lelio Fulgenzi)
> 19. Re: how to gather trace files on cucm v7....or which files
> rather... (Lelio Fulgenzi)
> 20. Re: how to gather trace files on cucm v7....or which files
> rather... (Lelio Fulgenzi)
> 21. Re: Anyne install on a IBM x3650-m2 (Christopher Trown)
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 12:40:34 -0500
>From: Mike Lydick <mike.lydick at gmail.com>
>To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>Subject: [cisco-voip] Customizing Unity Connection Failed delivery
> message
>Message-ID:
> <AANLkTikx2_FW6An=3ktx47W9r0HoxacmaW7kuTrTz6mk at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>Is there a way to customize the response that a subscriber will receive
>(smtp) if a message delivery fails. Currently the Sender receives a
>generic
>message that indicates the delivery has failed but there are no deails
>why.
>
>
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Mike Lydick
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL:
><https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/2010101/5df8834
>6/attachment-0001.html>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Dat: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 12:50:28 -0500
>From: Mike Lydick <mike.lydick at gmail.com>
>T: Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
>Cc: voyp list <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and
> UCxN v7 integration
>Message-ID:
> <AANLkTinYC3au9iujWRGD08EV96rJV23_aCJzesf8jPOw at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
>No MOH for supervised transfer, but I have never offered this feature to
>subscriber or a feature for attendants.
>
>I personally default to sip trunks to simplify the Callmanager dialplan.
>Best example is multiple CM clusters using the same unity cluster, it
>scales
>better to use SIP.
>
>I have not been able to get the secure sip trunks workin however.
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Mike Lydick
>
>
>
>
>On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>
>> what I read in different spots was DTMF and compatibility with old SCCP
>> phones which would likely need an MTP.
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
>> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
>> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
>> - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From: *"Jason Aarons (US)" <jason.aarons at us.didata.com>
>> *To: *"Sandy Lee" <Sandy.Lee at dti.ulaval.ca>, "Lelio Fulgenzi" <
>> lelio at uoguelph.ca>, "voyp list" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>> *Sent: *Wednesday, December 1, 2010 11:06:54 AM
>> *Subject: *RE: [cisco-voip] SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and
>> UCxN v7 integration
>>
>>
>> I?d like to know what the ?known SIP issues? are ? In general I still
>> stick with SCCP out of habit but I?d like to have known what was on
>>his/her
>> mind.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
>> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] *On Behalf Of *SandyLee
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 01, 2010 10:53 AM
>> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi; voyp list
>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and
>>UCxN
>> v7 integration
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Lelio,
>>
>>
>>
>> When I migrated from 4.1(3) to 7.1(3), I tried the SIP trunk, because I
> tought it would be simplier. I ran into a few issues and after
>>discussing
>> with my SE, he recommended the SCCP approach, as there are known issues
>>with
>> the SIP one. Nice o know ?before?. Maybe it was because I also had
>>another
>> SIP trunk to my legacy PBXthrough TIMG. Will never know, but SCCP works
>> fine for me.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sand.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
>> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] *On Behalf Of *Lelio Fulgenzi
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 30, 2010 4:36 PM
>> *To:* voyp list
>> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and UCxN v7
>> integration
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm working on the migration from CUCM v4.1(3) to v7.1(x).
>>
>> I think it would be much simpler if I am able to create a SIP trunk from
>> CallManager v7 to Connection.
>>
>> Has anyone seen any huge differences between an SCCP and a SIP
>>integration?
>> Do things generally continue to work the same?
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Lelio Flgenzi, B.A.
>> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
>> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
>> - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> * Disclaimer: This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain
>> confidential and privileged information and is for use by the designated
>> addressee(s) named above only. If you are not the intended addressee,
>>you
>> are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error
>>and
>> that any use or reproduction of this email or its contents is strictly
>> prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication
>>in
>> error, please notify us immediately by replying to this message and
>>deleting
>> it from your computer. Thank you. *
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>
>>
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL:
><https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20101201/35f4551
>a/attachment-0001.html>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 11:13:13 -0500
>From: Bill Simon <bills at psu.edu>
>To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and
> UCxN v7 integration
>Message-ID: <4CF67419.6050309 at psu.edu>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> We are sip trunking CUCM 6.x to UConn 7. No issues that I am aware of,
>though I believe the engineer who set it up chose SIP over TCP rather
>than UDP for some reason. Might have had to do with failover. If you
>want a contact, shoot me an e-mail or phone call and I'll get you in
>touch with him.
>
>
>On 12/1/2010 11:10 AM, Lelio Fulgenzi wrote:
>> what I read in different spots was DTMF and compatibility with old
>> SCCP phones which would likely need an MTP.
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
>> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
>> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
>> - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From: *"Jason Aarons (US)" <jason.aarons at us.didta.com>
>> *To: *"Sandy Lee" <Sandy.Lee at dti.ulaval.ca>, "Lelio Fulgenzi"
>> <leli at uoguelph.ca>, "voyp list" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>> *Sent: *Wednesday, December 1, 2010 11:06:54 AM
>> *Subject: *RE: [cisco-voip] SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and
>> UCxN v7 integration
>>
>> I?d like to know what the ?known SIP issues? are ? In general I still
> stick with SCCP out of habit but I?d like to have known what was on
>> his/her mind.
>>
>> *From:* cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
>> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] *On Behal Of *Sandy Lee
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 01, 2010 10:53 AM
>> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi;voyp list
>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 nd
>> UCxN v7 integration
>>
>> Hi Lelio,
>>
>> When I migrated from 4.1(3) to 7.1(3), I tried the SIP trunk, because
>> I tought it would be simplier. I ran into a few issues and after
>> discussing with my SE, he recommended the SCCP approach, as there are
>> known issues with the SIP one. Nice to know ?before?. Maybe it was
>> because I also had another SIP trunk to my legacy PBX through TIMG.
>> Will never know, but SCCP works fine for me.
>>
>> Sandy.
>>
>> *From:* cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
>> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] *On Behalf Of *Lelio
>>Fulgenzi
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 30, 2010 4:36 PM
>> *To:* voyp list
>> *Subjec:* [cisco-voip] SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and UCxN
>> v7 integration
>>
>> I'm working on the migration from CUCM v4.1(3) to v7.1(x).
>>
>> I think it would be much simpler if I am able to create a SIP trunk
>> from CallManager v7 to Connection.
>>
>> Has anyone seen any huge differences between an SCCP and a SIP
>> integration? Do things generally continue to work the same?
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
>> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
>> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Cooking with uix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
>> - LF (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> * Disclaimer: This e-mail communicatio and any attachments may
>> contain confidential and privileged information nd is for use by the
>> designated addressee(s) named above only. If you are not the intended
>> addressee, you are hereby notified that you have received this
>> communication in error and that any use or reproduction of this email
>> or its contents is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you
>> have received this communication in error, please notify us
>> immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your
>> computer. Thank you. *
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
>--
>Bill Simon - bills at psu.edu - (814) 865-2270
>http://tns.its.psu.edu/
>
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL:
><https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20101201/10fdab2
>0/attachment-0001.html>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 16:30:36 -0300
>From: Marcus Queiroz <queiroz.marcus at gmail.com>
>To: cisco-voip <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] cisco-voip Digest, Vol 86, Issue 1
>Message-ID:
> <AANLkTim1gtyuCj2=mgC9p3KjKAakK1vCA3GS07ORVS1p at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>Hello Friends, I have a doubt.
>
>Cisco 2801 supports up to how many mb?
>
>Thanks
>
>Marcus A. Queiroz
>
>
>
>2010/12/1 <cisco-voip-request at puck.nether.net>
>
>> 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. Eliminating Brief Instance of Hold Music (Jim Reed)
>> 2. Re: Eliminating Brief Instance of Hold Music (Jason Aarons (US))
>> 3. Re: Eliminating Brief Instance of Hold Music (Jason Aarons (US))
>> 4. Re: Eliminating Brief Instance of Hold Music (Jim Reed)
>> 5. tone on hold with SRST v4.1? (Lelio Fulgenzi)
>> 6. Re: Eliminating Brief Instance of Hold Music (Wes Sisk)
>> 7. Re: Eliminating Brief Instance of Hold Music (Jim Reed)
>> 8. SIP trunk vs. SCP ports for CUCM v7 and UCxN v7 integration
>> (Lelio Fulgenzi)
>> 9. Re: SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and UCxN v7
>> integration (Lelio Fulgenzi)
>> 10. Re: SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and UCxN v7
>> integration (Mike Lydick)
>> 11. Re: SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and UCxN v7
>> integration (Lelio Fulgenzi)
>> 12. Re: SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and UCxN v7
>> integration (Mike Lydick)
>> 13. Re: SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and UCxN v7
>> integration (Lelio Fulgenzi)
>> 14. Re: IBM 7816-I4 782x-I4 Filesystem errors (Ryan West)
>> 15. CM 4.1(3)SR8a patch install issue (Duane Priebe)
>> 16. Re: CM 4.1(3)SR8a patch install issue (Buchanan, James)
>> 17. Re: CM 4.1(3)SR8a patch install issue (Duane Priebe)
>> 18. Re: IBM 7816-I4 782x-I4 Filesystem errors (Ryan Ratliff)
>> 19. Re: SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and UCxN v7
>> integration (Sandy Lee)
>> 20. Re: Anyone setup 7828-I4 CUCMBE 8 before? (Ryan Ratliff)
> 21. Re: Anyone setup 7828-I4 CUCMBE 8 before? (Ryan West)
>> 22. Re: IP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and UCxN v7
>> integration (Lelio Fulgenzi)
>> 23. Re: SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and UCxN v7
>> integration (Jason Aarons (US))
>> 24. Re: SIP trunk vs. SCC ports for CUCM v7 and UCxN v7
>> integration (Lelio Fulgenzi)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:37:02 -0700
>> From: Jim Reed <jreed at swiftnews.com>
>> To: VoIPgroup <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>> Subject: [cisco-voip] Eliminating Brief Instance of Hold Music
>> Message-ID:
>><C91A925E.44E62%jreed at swiftnews.com<C91A925E.44E62%25jreed at swiftnews.com>
>> >
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> I am using the following call consult transfer step in IPCC 4.0(5) to
>> transfer an outside caller to a cell phone. The forwarded call is being
>> made from a location that requires long distance codes when placing long
>> distance calls. As the cell phone is not in the local calling area of
>>the
>> VoIP system, it requires a long distance call. During a brief three
>>(3) or
>> four (4) seconds while the forwarded call is setup, the caller is
>>hearing
>> hold music, then silence, then the ring to the cell phone. Is there a
>>way
>> to eliminate that hold music? The transition from silence to hold
>>music to
>> silence again to ringing may cause the caller to think they've been
>> disconnected.
>>
>> Call Consult Transfer (--Triggering Contact-- to "915552220975" with
>> "1234#")
>>
>> Thank You...
>> --
>> Jim Reed
>> Manager of Technical Services
>> Swift Communications, Inc.
>> 970-384-9141 (Direct)
>> 775-772-7666 (Cell)
>>
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <
>>
>>https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20101130/6546a45
>>2/attachment-0001.html
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 13:45:49 -0500
>> From: "Jason Aarons (US)" <jason.aarons at us.didata.com>
>> To: Jim Reed <jreed at swiftnews.com>, VoIPgroup
>> <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Eliminating Brief Instance of Hold Music
>> Message-ID:
>>
>>
>><4E38DB0A1959B04C8C83EDCF069B53ED0C81F59B8A at USISPCLEXDB01.na.didata.local
>> >
>>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>> It's using the CTI Port's Music On Hold.
>>
>> Record a .wav file of silence, use that for the Music On Hold on your
>>IPCC
>> CTI Ports.
>>
>> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
>> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jim Reed
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 1:37 PM
>> To: VoIPgroup
>> Subject: [cisco-voip] Eliminating Brief Instance of Hold Music
>>
>> I am using the following call consult transfer step in IPCC 4.0(5) to
>> transfer an outside caller to a cell phone. The forwarded call is being
>> made from a location that requires long distance codes when placing long
>> distance calls. As the cell phone is not in the local calling area of
>>the
>> VoIP system, it requires a long distance call. During a brief three
>>(3) or
>> four (4) seconds while the forwarded call is setup, the caller is
>>hearing
>> hold music, then silence, then the ring to the cell phone. Is there a
>>way
>> to eliminate that hold music? The transition from silence to hold
>>music to
>> silence again to ringing may cause the caller to think they've been
>> disconnected.
>>
>> Call Consult Transfer (--Triggering Contact-- to "915552220975" with
>> "1234#")
>>
>> Thank You...
>> --
>> Jim Reed
>> Manager of Technical Services
>> Swift Communications, Inc.
>> 970-384-9141 (Direct)
>> 775-772-7666 (Cell)
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>> 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/20101130/e1e109b
>>2/attachment-0001.html
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 13:53:44 -0500
>> From: "Jason Aarons (US)" <jason.aarons at us.didata.com>
>> To: "Jason Aarons (US)" <jason.aarons at us.didata.com>, Jim Reed
>> <jreed at swiftnews.com>, VoIPgroup <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Eliminating Brief Instance of Hold Music
>> Message-ID:
>>
>>
>><4E38DB0A1959B04C8C83EDCF069B53ED0C81F59BA1 at USISPCLEXDB01.na.didata.local
>> >
>>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>> I should elaborate, when you do a transfer the first thing it does it
>>puts
>> the line on hold (where you are hearing music). It's no different then
>>if
>> you Transfer a call.
>>
>> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
>> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jason Aarons (US)
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 1:46 PM
>> To: Jim Reed; VoIPgroup
>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Eliminating Brief Instance of Hold Music
>>
>> It's using the CTI Port's Music On Hold.
>>
>> Record a .wav file of silence, use that for the Music On Hold on your
>>IPCC
>> CTI Ports.
>>
>> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
>> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jim Reed
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 1:37 PM
>> To: VoIPgroup
>> Subject: [cisco-voip] Eliminating Brief Instance of Hold Music
>>>> I am using the following call consult transfer step in IPCC 4.0(5) to
>> transfer an outside caller to a cell phone. The forwarded call is being
>> made from a location that requires long distance codes when placing long
>> distance calls. As the cell phone is not i the local calling area of
>>the
>> VoIP system, it requires a long ditance call. During a brief three
>>(3) or
>> four (4) seconds while the frwarded call is setup, the caller is
>>hearing
>> hold music, then silence, then the ring to the cell phone. Is there a
>>way
>> to eliminate that hold music? The transition from silence to hold
>>music to
>> silence again to ringing may cause the caller to think they've been
>> disconnected.
>>
>> Call Consult Transfer (--Triggering Contact-- to "915552220975" with
>> "1234#")
>>
>> Thank You...
>> --
>> Jim Reed
>> Manager of Technical Services
>> Swift Communications, Inc.
>> 970-384-9141 (Direct)
>> 775-772-7666 (Cell)
>> ________________________________
>>
>> 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 eror
>>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 ou.
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>> Disclaimer:
>>
> This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain
>> confidential and privileged information and is for use by the
>> dsignated addressee(s) named above only. If you are not the
>> intende addressee, you are hereby notified that you have received
>> this communication in error andthat any use or reproduction of
>> this email or its contents is strictl prohibited and may be
>> unlawful. If you have received this communicaion in error, please
>> notify us immediately by replying to this messageand deleting it
>> from your computer. Thank you.
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <
>>
>>https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20101130/25aad3d
>>2/attachment-000.html
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 4
>> Date:Tue, 30 Nov 2010 12:01:57 -0700
>> From: Jim Reed <jreed at swiftnews.com>
>> To: "Jason Aarons (US)" <jason.aarons at us.didata.com>, VoIPgroup
>> <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Eliminating Brief Instance of Hod Music
>> Message-ID:
>><C91A9835.44E6E%jreed at swiftnews.com<C91A9835.44E6E%25jreed at swiftnews.com>
>> >
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> Thanks, Jason. I think that will work. I'll have to review their other
>> scripts to see if the silence on hold will cause an issue there but I
>>don't
>> think so.
>> --
>> Jim Reed
>> Manager of Technical Services
>> Swift Communications, Inc.
>> 970-384-9141 (Direct)
>> 775-772-7666 (Cell)
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/30/10 11:53 AM, "Jason Aarons (US)" <jason.aarns at us.didata.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I should elaborate, when you do a transfer the first thing it does it
>>puts
>> the line on hold (where you are hearing music). It's no different then
>>if
>> you Transfer a call.
>>
>>
>> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
>> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jason Aarons (US)
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 1:46 PM
>> To: Jim Reed; VoIPgroup
>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Eliminating Brief Instance of Hold Music
>>
>> It's using the CTI Port's Music On Hold.
>>
>> Record a .wav file of silence, use that for the Music On Hold on your
>>IPCC
>> CTI Ports.
>>
>>
>> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
>> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jim Reed
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 1:37 PM
>> To: VoIPgroup
>> Subject: [cisco-voip] Eliminating Brief Instance of Hold Music
>>
>> I am using the following call consult transfer step in IPCC 4.0(5) to
>> transfer an outside caller to a cell phone. The forwarded call is being
>> made from a location that requires long distance codes when placing long
>> distance calls. As the cell phone is not in the local calling area of
>>the
>> VoIP system, it requires a long distance call. During a brief three
>>(3) or
>> four (4) seconds while the forwarded call is setup, the caller is
>>hearing
>> hold music, then silence, then the ring to the cell phone. Is there a
>>way
>> to eliminate that hold music? The transition from silence to hold
>>music to
>> silence again to ringing may cause the caller to think they've been
>> disconnected.
>>
>> Call Consult Transfer (--Triggering Contact-- to "915552220975" with
>> "1234#")
>>
>> Thank You...
>>
>>
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML atachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <
>>
>>https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20101130/5070917
>>b/attachment-0001.html
>> >
>>
>> -----------------------------
>>
>> Message: 5
>> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:02:21 -0500 EST)
>> From: Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
>> To: voyp list <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>> Subject: [cisco-voip] tone on hold with SRST v4.1?
>> Message-ID:
>>
>><675681003.710894.1291143741122.JavaMail.root at simcoe.cs.uoguelph.ca
>> >
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> I have a v4.0 SRST installation which I swear did not have tone on
>>hold, so
>> I uploaded a wav file with beeps in it to mimic what we have during
>>regular
>> operation.
>>
>> I'm playing with v4.1 SRST right now, and it seems that tone on hold is
>>now
>> included.
>>
>> Nothing in the docs....
>>
>> Anyone realize this?
>>
>> Just wondering...
>>
>> ---
>> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
>> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
>> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
>> - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
>>
>>
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <
>>
>>https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20101130/67b102d
>>b/attachment-0001.html
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 6
>> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:08:11 -0500
>> From: Wes Sisk <wsisk at cisco.com>
>> To: Jim Reed <jreed at swiftnews.com>
>> Cc: VoIPgroup <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Eliminating Brief Instance of Hold Music
>> Message-ID: <4CF54B9B.5080703 at ciso.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
>
>> And let your Cisco account team know you want this implemented:
>>
> CSCdw68639 Need ability to select tone on hold or silence as an MoH
>> hold source
>>
>> /Wes
>>
>> Jim Reed wrote:
>> > *Thanks, Jason. I think that will work. I'll have to review their
>> > other scripts to see if the silence on hold will cause an issue there
>> > but I don't think so.
>> > **--
>> > Jim Reed
>> > Manager of Technical Services
>> > Swift Communications, Inc.
>> > 970-384-9141 (Direct)
>> > 775-772-7666 (Cell)
>> > *
>> >
>> >
>> > On 11/30/10 11:53 AM, "Jason Aarons (US)" <jason.aarons at us.didata.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > I should elaborate, when you do a transfer the first thing it does
>> > it puts the line on hold (where you are hearing music). It's no
>> > different then if you Transfer a call.
>> >
>> >
>> > *From:* cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
>> > [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net]
>> > <mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net%5D> *On Behalf Of
>> > *Jason Aarons (US)
>> > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 30, 2010 1:46 PM
>> > *To:* Jim Reed; VoIPgroup
>> > *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Eliminating Brief Instance of Hold
>>Music
>> >
>> > It's using the CTI Port's Music On Hold.
>> >
>> > Record a .wav file of silence, use that for the Music On Hold on
>> > your IPCC CTI Ports.
>> >
>> >
>> > *From:* cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
>> > [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net]
>> > <mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net%5D> *On Behalf Of *Jim
>> Reed
>> > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 30, 2010 1:37 PM
>> > *To:* VoIPgroup
>> > *Subject:* [cisco-voip] Eliminating Brief Instance of Hold Music
>> >
>> > *I am using the following call consult transfer step in IPCC
>> > 4.0(5) to transfer an outside caller to a cell phone. The
>> > forwarded call is being made from a location that requires long
>> > distance codes when placing long distance calls. As the cell
>> > phone is not in the local calling area of the VoIP system, it
>> > requires a long distance call. During a brief three (3) or four
>> > (4) seconds while the forwarded call is setup, the caller is
>> > hearing hold music, then silence, then the ring to the cell phone.
>> > Is there a way to eliminate that hold music? The transition from
>> > silence to hold music to silence again to ringing may cause the
>> > caller to think they've been disconnected.
>> >
>> > Call Consult Transfer (--Triggering Contact-- to "915552220975"
>> > with "1234#")
>> >
>> > Thank You...
>> > *
>> >
>> > *
>> >
>> > *
>> >
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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/20101130/4e86314
>>1/attachment-0001.html
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 7
>> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 12:12:59 -0700
>> From: Jim Reed <jreed at swiftnews.com>
>> To: Wes Sisk <wsisk at cisco.com>
>> Cc: VoIPgroup <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Eliminating Brief Instance of Hold Music
>> Message-ID:
>><C91A9ACB.44E75%jreed at swiftnews.com<C91A9ACB.44E75%25jreed at swiftnews.com>
>> >
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> Thanks, Wes. I'm working with them on another project so I'll add this
>>one
>> to the list.
>> --
>> Jim Reed
>> Manager of Technical Services
>> Swift Communications, Inc.
>> 970-384-9141 (Direct)
>> 775-772-7666 (Cell)
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/30/10 12:08 PM, "Wes Sisk" <wsisk at cisco.com> wrote:
>>
>> And let your Cisco account team know you want this implemented:
>>
>> CSCdw68639 Need ability to select tone on hold or silence as an MoH
>>hold
>> source
>>
>> /Wes
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <
>>
>>https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20101130/f3b86d5
>>d/attachment-0001.html
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 8
>> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:36:27 -0500 (EST)
>> From: Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
>> To: voyp list <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>> Subject: [cisco-voip] SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and UCxN v7
>> integration
>> Message-ID:
>> <
>> 1426930959.721868.1291152987205.JavaMail.root at simcoe.cs.uoguelph.ca>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> I'm working on the migration from CUCM v4.1(3) to v7.1(x).
>>
>> I think it would be much simpler if I am able to create a SIP trunk from
>> CallManager v7 to Connection.
>>
>> Has anyone seen any huge differences between an SCCP and a SIP
>>integration?
>> Do things generally continue to work the same?
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
>> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
>> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
>> - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
>>
>>
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <
>>
>>https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20101130/30f7a51
>>f/attachment-0001.html
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 9
>> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 17:54:46 -0500 (EST)
>> From: Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
>> To: voyp list <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and
>> UCxN v7 integration
>> Message-ID:
>> <
>> 1760334960.725187.1291157686398.JavaMail.root at simcoe.cs.uoguelph.ca>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> Just some further information and questions...
>>
>> we have three hunt groups so that we can ensure that calls are processed
>> accordingly, a group reserved for auto-attendant, a group reserved for
>> voicemail access and a group reserved for call processing.
>>
>> the hunt pilots for each, progressively use the groups, so autoattendant
>> uses all three groups, voice mail uses the voice mail and call
>>processing
>> groups, and call processing only uses the call processing group.
>>
>> I'm thinking I can simulate this with three SIP trunks and the
>>appropriate
>> number of ports in each SIP trunk group on Unity connection.
>>
>> On CallManager, I would use route lists to send calls to the group of
>>ports
>> over the sip trunks.
>>
>> The integration guide refers to the issue of having to use MTPs for
>>older
>> SCCP phones.
>>
>> Any comments would be most welcome.
>>
>> Lelio
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
>> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
>> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
>> - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
>>
>>
>>
>> From: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
>> To: "voyp list" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 4:36:27 PM
>> Subject: SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and UCxN v7 integration
>>
>>
>> I'm working on the migration from CUCM v4.1(3) to v7.1(x).
>>
>> I think it would be much simpler if I am able to create a SIP trunk from
>> CallManager v7 to Connection.
>>
>> Has anyone seen any huge differences between an SCCP and a SIP
>>integration?
>> Do things generally continue to work the same?
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
>> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
>> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
>> - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
>>
>>
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <
>>
>>https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20101130/06d081c
>>d/attachment-0001.html
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 10
>> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 17:57:21 -0500
>> From: Mike Lydick <mike.lydick at gmail.com>
>> To: Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
>> Cc: voyp list <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and
>> UCxN v7 integration
>> Message-ID:
>>
>><AANLkTi=GjPtJuKVaO2Sgd84xbT2ToTbHmT_wF9ox+7t8 at mail.gmail.com<GjPtJuKVaO2
>>Sgd84xbT2ToTbHmT_wF9ox%2B7t8 at mail.gmail.com>
>> >
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> >From Callmanager, there maybe few less steps. There is the benefit of
>>not
>> assign directory numbers for the vm ports with sip but port setup
>>completed
>> correctly numbers should not matter (separate partition and all that).
>> The SIP integration is has simpler route logic and less touch points if
>>you
>> have to change anything.
>>
>> >From the Unity the SIP setup is similar to the SCCP port setup. There
>>are
>> a
>> few caveats with transfer that I have not run into yet such as no MOH
>>with
>> supervised transfer.
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Mike Lydick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
>>wrote:
>>
>> > I'm working on the migration from CUCM v4.1(3) to v7.1(x).
>> >
>> > I think it would be much simpler if I am able to create a SIP trunk
>>from
>> > CallManager v7 to Connection.
>> >
>> > Has anyone seen any huge differences between an SCCP and a SIP
>> integration?
>> > Do things generally continue to work the same?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ---
>> > Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
>> > Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
>> > (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
>> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
>> > - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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/20101130/c3c2744
>>2/attachment-0001.html
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 11
>> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 18:01:10 -0500 (EST)
>> From: Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
>> To: Mike Lydick <mike.lydick at gmail.com>
>> Cc: voyp list <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and
>> UCxN v7 integration
>> Message-ID:
>>
>><783743672.725415.1291158070458.JavaMail.root at simcoe.cs.uoguelph.ca
>> >
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> yes, i'm anticipating less work, but i'd still like to have three
>>groups of
>> ports so i can reserve ports for the various functions.
>>
>> the easiest thing would be to simply make one group, but i'm not sure i
>> like the idea of not being able to control things. i'd hate to have
>>everyone
>> check voice mail at once after a broadcast message and then
>>auto-attendant
>> fails. ugh
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
>> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
>> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
>> - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
>>
>>
>>
>> From: "Mike Lydick" <mike.lydick at gmail.com>
>> To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
>> Cc: "voyp list" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 5:57:21 PM
>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and UCxN
>>v7
>> integration
>>
>> >From Callmanager, there maybe few less steps. There is the benefit of
>>not
>> assign directory numbers for the vm ports with sip but port setup
>>completed
>> correctly numbers should not matter (separate partition and all that).
>> The SIP integration is has simpler route logic and less touch points if
>>you
>> have to change anything.
>>
>>
>> >From the Unity the SIP setup is similar to the SCCP port setup. There
>>are
>> a few caveats with transfer that I have not run into yet such as no MOH
>>with
>> supervised transfer.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Mike Lydick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi < lelio at uoguelph.ca >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm working on the migration from CUCM v4.1(3) to v7.1(x).
>>
>> I think it would be much simpler if I am able to create a SIP trunk from
>> CallManager v7 to Connection.
>>
>> Has anyone seen any huge differences between an SCCP and a SIP
>>integration?
>> Do things generally continue to work the same?
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
>> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
>> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
>> - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20101130/cf25a29
>>f/attachment-0001.html
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 12
>> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 18:02:56 -0500
>> From: Mike Lydick <mike.lydick at gmail.com>
>> To: Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
>> Cc: voyp list <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and
>> UCxN v7 integration
>> Message-ID:
>>
>><AANLkTi=7vfH6Zdo8+9C1gAgjTMvKW8RR+0+Vsy46BFDP at mail.gmail.com<7vfH6Zdo8%2
>>B9C1gAgjTMvKW8RR%2B0%2BVsy46BFDP at mail.gmail.com>
>> >
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> If you are dedicating ports to these call functions, it might be best to
>> stick with sccp. I am not sure that your going to be able to set
>>multiple
>> trunks to the same unity server.
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Mike Lydick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
>>wrote:
>>
>> > Just some further information and questions...
>> >
>> > we have three hunt groups so that we can ensure that calls are
>>processed
>> > accordingly, a group reserved for auto-attendant, a group reserved for
>> > voicemail access and a group reserved for call processing.
>> >
>> > the hunt pilots for each, progressively use the groups, so
>>autoattendant
>> > uses all three groups, voice mail uses the voice mail and call
>>processing
>> > groups, and call processing only uses the call processing group.
>> >
>> > I'm thinking I can simulate this with three SIP trunks and the
>> appropriate
>> > number of ports in each SIP trunk group on Unity connection.
>> >
>> > On CallManager, I would use route lists to send calls to the group of
>> ports
>> > over the sip trunks.
>> >
>> > The integration guide refers to the issue of having to use MTPs for
>>older
>> > SCCP phones.
>> >
>> > Any comments would be most welcome.
>> >
>> > Lelio
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ---
>> > Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
>> > Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
>> > (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
>> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
>> > - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------
>> > *From: *"Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
>> > *To: *"voyp list" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>> > *Sent: *Tuesday, November 30, 2010 4:36:27 PM
>> > *Subject: *SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and UCxN v7
>>integration
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm working on the migration from CUCM v4.1(3) to v7.1(x).
>> >
>> > I think it would be much simpler if I am able to create a SIP trunk
>>from
>> > CallManager v7 to Connection.
>> >
>> > Has anyone seen any huge differences between an SCCP and a SIP
>> integration?
>> > Do things generally continue to work the same?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ---
>> > Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
>> > Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
>> > (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
>> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
>> > - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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/20101130/f8c8751
>>5/attachment-0001.html
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 13
>> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 18:04:03 -0500 (EST)
>> From: Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
>> To: Mike Lydick <mike.lydick at gmail.com>
>> Cc: voyp list <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and
>> UCxN v7 integration
>> Message-ID:
>> <
>> 1785616989.725541.1291158243773.JavaMail.root at simcoe.cs.uoguelph.ca>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> oh. darn. :(
>>
>> ---
>> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
>> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
>> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
>> - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
>>
>>
>>
>> From: "Mike Lydick" <mike.lydick at gmail.com>
>> To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
>> Cc: "voyp list" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 6:02:56 PM
>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and UCxN
>>v7
>> integration
>>
>> If you are dedicating ports to these call functions, it might be best to
>> stick with sccp. I am not sure that your going to be able to set
>>multiple
>> trunks to the same unity server.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Mike Lydick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi < lelio at uoguelph.ca >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Just some further information and questions...
>>
>> we have three hunt groups so that we can ensure that calls are processed
>> accordingly, a group reserved for auto-attendant, a group reserved for
>> voicemail access and a group reserved for call processing.
>>
>> the hunt pilots for each, progressively use the groups, so autoattendant
>> uses all three groups, voice mail uses the voice mail and call
>>processing
>> groups, and call processing only uses the call processing group.
>>
>> I'm thinking I can simulate this with three SIP trunks and the
>>appropriate
>> number of ports in each SIP trunk group on Unity connection.
>>
>> On CallManager, I would use route lists to send calls to the group of
>>ports
>> over the sip trunks.
>>
>> The integration guide refers to the issue of having to use MTPs for
>>older
>> SCCP phones.
>>
>> Any comments would be most welcome.
>>
>> Lelio
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
>> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
>> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
>> - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
>>
>>
>>
>> From: "Lelio Fulgenzi" < lelio at uoguelph.ca >
>> To: "voyp list" < cisco-voip at puck.nether.net >
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 4:36:27 PM
>> Subject: SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and UCxN v7 integration
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm working on the migration from CUCM v4.1(3) to v7.1(x).
>>
>> I think it would be much simpler if I am able to create a SIP trunk from
>> CallManager v7 to Connection.
>>
>> Has anyone seen any huge differences between an SCCP and a SIP
>>integration?
>> Do things generally continue to work the same?
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
>> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
>> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
>> - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20101130/588a3cf
>>f/attachment-0001.html
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 14
>> Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 14:02:53 +0000
>> From: Ryan West <rwest at zyedge.com>
>> To: "cisco-voip at puck.nether.net" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] IBM 7816-I4 782x-I4 Filesystem errors
>> Message-ID:
>> <5DC4853C6CC3EE4788779E0726E034DD60CBB2 at zy-ex1.zyedge.local>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
>> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Ryan West
>> >Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 1:20 PM
>> >To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>> >Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] IBM 7816-I4 782x-I4 Filesystem errors
>> >
>> >Option 2a gives me an out. TAC is recommending a complete re-install
>>if
>> it takes several cycles for FSCK to run. If a couple of minor errors
>>are
>> detected and >the system looks healthy after recovery, I'll weigh my
>>options
>> and see if an upgrade to 8.0.3a SU1 will cover any damaged files.
>> >
>> >-ryan
>>
>> Lots of file system errors were detected, SNMPD was toast, parts of JVM
>> were corrupt and the process that runs after disc syncing also became
>> corrupt. The file system would re-enter read-only mode after 6 hours
>> (enough time to resync the disks). Attempted an upgrade to 8.0.3aSU1,
>>only
>> to have it fail near the end. My next option was to re-install, but it
>> appears the installer does not have a way to interrupt the Out of Sync
>> status the controllers go into after the read-only event. Sending over
>>a
>> blank Hardware Configuration Error screen and having TAC not understand
>>it
>> either did not instill great confidence with the customer or myself.
>>Had a
>> new server shipped out (mandated by the customer), upgraded the
>>firmware on
>> that 7828-I4, started the install and viola, found the same ominous
>>Hardware
>> Configuration Error with no information in it.
>>
>> All in all, I was able to recover the system to very recent copy. Even
>> with the file system corruption, DRS was able to run without errors and
>>the
>> restore has been running solid for the last week. Latest bug updates
>>are
>> covered here:
>>
>>
>>
>>http://tools.cisco.com/Support/BugToolKit/search/getBugDetails.do?method=
>>fetchBugDetails&bugId=CSCti52867
>>
>> I've heard shipment was halted on these boxes, but if you've installed a
>> CUP or CMBE server in the last 6 months, I would suggest patching ASAP.
>> The
>> disc exerciser takes about 45 mins to run. The firmware upgrade takes
>>about
>> 5 mins.
>>
>> -ryan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 15
>> Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 08:44:23 -0600
>> From: "Duane Priebe" <dpriebe at theriverbank.com>
>> To: <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>> Subject: [cisco-voip] CM 4.1(3)SR8a patch install issue
>> Message-ID:
>>
>><43D799CBE4331D44999AB7C9CD67F3020A05FBCD at NTEXCHANGE.riverbank.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>> Hello, I've been trying to get the CM 4.1(3)SR8a patch installed
>> (starting with the publisher). Once all AV, CSA, etc.. have been
>> disabled I run the patch install executable. It goes forward and reads
>> the contacts of the package, completes the file extraction process, then
>> stalls out with a generic "Unable to open the script file" message box.
>> In the past these SR releases have been pretty straight forward and I
>> can't read anything on how this one might be different. Any suggestions
>> anyone?
>>
>>
>>
>> Duane
>>
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <
>>
>>https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20101201/8f09cfb
>>c/attachment-0001.html
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 16
>> Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 09:47:17 -0500
>> From: "Buchanan, James" <jbuchanan at presidio.com>
>> To: Duane Priebe <dpriebe at theriverbank.com>,
>> "cisco-voip at puck.nether.net" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CM 4.1(3)SR8a patch install issue
>> Message-ID:
>> <853687641CF93E40B362F112A3D8F3CE10DA8A6E at SOEXCH01.Presidio.Corp>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>> What are you upgrading from?
>>
>> James Buchanan | Technology Manager, UC | South Region | Presidio
>>Networked
>> Solutions
>> 12 Cadillac Dr, Suite 130, Brentwood, TN 37027 | jbuchanan at presidio.com
>> <mailto:jbuchanan at ctiusa.com>
>> D: 615-866-5729 | F: 615-866-5781 | www.presidio.com<
>> http://www.presidio.com/>
>> CCIE #25863, Voice
>>
>>
>> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
>> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Duane Priebe
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 8:44 AM
>> To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>> Subject: [cisco-voip] CM 4.1(3)SR8a patch install issue
>>
>> Hello, I've been trying to get the CM 4.1(3)SR8a patch installed
>>(starting
>> with the publisher). Once all AV, CSA, etc.. have been disabled I run
>>the
>> patch install executable. It goes forward and reads the contacts of the
>> package, completes the file extraction process, then stalls out with a
>> generic "Unable to open the script file" message box. In the past
>>these SR
>> releases have been pretty straight forward and I can't read anything on
>>how
>> this one might be different. Any suggestions anyone?
>>
>> Duane
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <
>>
>>https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20101201/1af60d0
>>0/attachment-0001.html
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 17
>> Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 08:51:59 -0600
>> From: "Duane Priebe" <dpriebe at theriverbank.com>
>> To: "Buchanan, James" <jbuchanan at presidio.com>,
>> <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CM 4.1(3)SR8a patch install issue
>> Message-ID:
>>
>><43D799CBE4331D44999AB7C9CD67F3020A05FBCE at NTEXCHANGE.riverbank.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>> Upgrading from CM 4.1(3)ES103
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Buchanan, James [mailto:jbuchanan at presidio.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 8:47 AM
>> To: Duane Priebe; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>> Subject: RE: CM 4.1(3)SR8a patch install issue
>>
>>
>>
>> What are you upgrading from?
>>
>>
>>
>> James Buchanan | Technology Manager, UC | South Region | Presidio
>> Networked Solutions
>> 12 Cadillac Dr, Suite 130, Brentwood, TN 37027 | jbuchanan at presidio.com
>> <mailto:jbuchanan at ctiusa.com>
>> D: 615-866-5729 | F: 615-866-5781 | www.presidio.com
>> <http://www.presidio.com/>
>>
>> CCIE #25863, Voice
>>
>>
>>
>> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
>> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Duane Priebe
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 8:44 AM
>> To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>> Subject: [cisco-voip] CM 4.1(3)SR8a patch install issue
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello, I've been trying to get the CM 4.1(3)SR8a patch installed
>> (starting with the publisher). Once all AV, CSA, etc.. have been
>> disabled I run the patch install executable. It goes forward and reads
>> the contacts of the package, completes the file extraction process, then
>> stalls out with a generic "Unable to open the script file" message box.
>> In the past these SR releases have been pretty straight forward and I
>> can't read anything on how this one might be different. Any suggestions
>> anyone?
>>
>>
>>
>> Duane
>>
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <
>>
>>https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20101201/501c3a3
>>1/attachment-0001.html
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 18
>> Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 10:50:33 -0500
>> From: Ryan Ratliff <rratliff at cisco.com>
>> To: Ryan West <rwest at zyedge.com>
>> Cc: "cisco-voip at puck.nether.net" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] IBM 7816-I4 782x-I4 Filesystem errors
>> Message-ID: <9996C9B9-3F15-4402-9104-B2CFC8014E11 at cisco.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>> That blank hardware config error just means the array is rebuilding.
>>You
>> can continue past it with no issues or go into the array controller and
>> delete the array. The install will recreate the array for you and go on
>> with life.
>>
>> The array resyncing after readonly filesystem and after the firmware
>> upgrade are normal.
>>
>> -Ryan
>>
>> On Dec 1, 2010, at 9:02 AM, Ryan West wrote:
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
>> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Ryan West
>> > Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 1:20 PM
>> > To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>> > Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] IBM 7816-I4 782x-I4 Filesystem errors
>> >
>> > Option 2a gives me an out. TAC is recommending a complete re-install
>>if
>> it takes several cycles for FSCK to run. If a couple of minor errors
>>are
>> detected and >the system looks healthy after recovery, I'll weigh my
>>options
>> and see if an upgrade to 8.0.3a SU1 will cover any damaged files.
>> >
>> > -ryan
>>
>> Lots of file system errors were detected, SNMPD was toast, parts of JVM
>> were corrupt and the process that runs after disc syncing also became
>> corrupt. The file system would re-enter read-only mode after 6 hours
>> (enough time to resync the disks). Attempted an upgrade to 8.0.3aSU1,
>>only
>> to have it fail near the end. My next option was to re-install, but it
>> appears the installer does not have a way to interrupt the Out of Sync
>> status the controllers go into after the read-only event. Sending over
>>a
>> blank Hardware Configuration Error screen and having TAC not understand
>>it
>> either did not instill great confidence with the customer or myself.
>>Had a
>> new server shipped out (mandated by the customer), upgraded the
>>firmware on
>> that 7828-I4, started the install and viola, found the same ominous
>>Hardware
>> Configuration Error with no information in it.
>>
>> All in all, I was able to recover the system to very recent copy. Even
>> with the file system corruption, DRS was able to run without errors and
>>the
>> restore has been running solid for the last week. Latest bug updates
>>are
>> covered here:
>>
>>
>>
>>http://tools.cisco.com/Support/BugToolKit/search/getBugDetails.do?method=
>>fetchBugDetails&bugId=CSCti52867
>>
>> I've heard shipment was halted on these boxes, but if you've installed a
>> CUP or CMBE server in the last 6 months, I would suggest patching ASAP.
>> The
>> disc exerciser takes about 45 mins to run. The firmware upgrade takes
>>about
>> 5 mins.
>>
>> -ryan
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20101201/742b39c
>>b/attachment-0001.html
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 19
>> Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 10:52:34 -0500
>> From: Sandy Lee <Sandy.Lee at dti.ulaval.ca>
>> To: Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca>, voyp list
>> <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and
>> UCxN v7 integration
>> Message-ID:
>> <3C85C8DEE6E8D14D8F92A72C8B702FD40435B92BA5 at EXCH-MBX-B.ulaval.ca>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> Hi Lelio,
>>
>> When I migrated from 4.1(3) to 7.1(3), I tried the SIP trunk, because I
>> tought it would be simplier. I ran into a few issues and after
>>discussing
>> with my SE, he recommended the SCCP approach, as there are known issues
>>with
>> the SIP one. Nice to know ?before?. Maybe it was because I also had
>>another
>> SIP trunk to my legacy PBX through TIMG. Will never know, but SCCP works
>> fine for me.
>>
>> Sandy.
>>
>> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
>> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 4:36 PM
>> To: voyp list
>> Subject: [cisco-voip] SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and UCxN v7
>> integration
>>
>> I'm working on the migration from CUCM v4.1(3) to v7.1(x).
>>
>> I think it would be much simpler if I am able to create a SIP trunk from
>> CallManager v7 to Connection.
>>
>> Has anyone seen any huge differences between an SCCP and a SIP
>>integration?
>> Do things generally continue to work the same?
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
>> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
>> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
>> - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
>>
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <
>>
>>https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20101201/930451d
>>7/attachment-0001.html
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 20
>> Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 10:56:41 -0500
>> From: Ryan Ratliff <rratliff at cisco.com>
>> To: Ki Wi <kiwi.voice at gmail.com>
>> Cc: Cisco VoIP List <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Anyone setup 7828-I4 CUCMBE 8 before?
>> Message-ID: <51A081FA-7BE9-41BA-9BEC-D464817B0897 at cisco.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>> You should call up Cisco customer service and see if they can help you
>>out
>> if you ordered the wrong thing.
>>
>> You mentioned in your original email that you took the 8.0(3a)SU1 and
>>made
>> it bootable. This won't work even with the instructions from a blog out
>> there.
>>
>> -Ryan
>>
>> On Nov 29, 2010, at 9:28 PM, Ki Wi wrote:
>>
>> Nope. Currently escalating to the BU. Not sure why my team manage to
>>buy it
>> even it's end of sales or maybe just a few days before eos
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> Pls pardon my fat fingers.
>>
>> On Nov 25, 2010, at 10:58 PM, Lee <ender9600 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > It's not free to upgrade to a major version.
>> >
>> > Did you order UCSS along with ESW? That would allow you to go to 8
>> >
>> > On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Ki Wi <kiwi.voice at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Which version should I be using to install it?
>> > I tried to get the latest 8.0.3a SU1 but it can't detect the hardware
>>and
>> mark it as legacy (i make the disk bootable myself) .
>> >
>> > My side somehow managed to ordered the cucmbe7 version but I wish to
>> upgrade it to 8. I have yet to register the license, I should be able to
>> contact licensing and get the license for cucmbe 8 right?
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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/20101201/7d688da
>>6/attachment-0001.html
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 21
>> Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 16:00:04 +0000
>> From: Ryan West <rwest at zyedge.com>
>> To: Ki Wi <kiwi.voice at gmail.com>
>> Cc: Cisco VoIP List <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Anyone setup 7828-I4 CUCMBE 8 before?
>> Message-ID:
>> <5DC4853C6CC3EE4788779E0726E034DD60D147 at zy-ex1.zyedge.local>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>> 8.0.3 is bootable, you can start from there.
>>
>> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
>> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Ryan Ratliff
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 10:57 AM
>> To: Ki Wi
>> Cc: Cisco VoIP List
>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Anyone setup 7828-I4 CUCMBE 8 before?
>>
>> You should call up Cisco customer service and see if they can help you
>>out
>> if you ordered the wrong thing.
>>
>> You mentioned in your original email that you took the 8.0(3a)SU1 and
>>made
>> it bootable. This won't work even with the instructions from a blog out
>> there.
>>
>> -Ryan
>>
>> On Nov 29, 2010, at 9:28 PM, Ki Wi wrote:
>>
>> Nope. Currently escalating to the BU. Not sure why my team manage to
>>buy it
>> even it's end of sales or maybe just a few days before eos
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> Pls pardon my fat fingers.
>>
>> On Nov 25, 2010, at 10:58 PM, Lee <ender9600 at gmail.com<mailto:
>> ender9600 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> It's not free to upgrade to a major version.
>>
>> Did you order UCSS along with ESW? That would allow you to go to 8
>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Ki Wi <kiwi.voice at gmail.com<mailto:
>> kiwi.voice at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Which version should I be using to install it?
>> I tried to get the latest 8.0.3a SU1 but it can't detect the hardware
>>and
>> mark it as legacy (i make the disk bootable myself) .
>>
>> My side somehow managed to ordered the cucmbe7 version but I wish to
>> upgrade it to 8. I have yet to register the license, I should be able to
>> contact licensing and get the license for cucmbe 8 right?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20101201/68ac14b
>>b/attachment-0001.html
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 22
>> Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 11:03:48 -0500 (EST)
>> From: Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
>> To: Sandy Lee <Sandy.Lee at dti.ulaval.ca>
>> Cc: voyp list <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and
>> UCxN v7 integration
>> Message-ID:
>> <
>> 1628803545.750680.1291219428783.JavaMail.root at simcoe.cs.uoguelph.ca>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> Thanks Sandy. I think I will try the SIP trunk, but you are right, I
>>will
>> most likely be sticking with an SCCP integration for now. Tried and
>>true.
>>
>> ---
>> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
>> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
>> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
>> - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
>>
>>
>>
>> From: "Sandy Lee" <Sandy.Lee at dti.ulaval.ca>
>> To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio at uoguelph.ca>, "voyp list" <
>> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2010 10:52:34 AM
>> Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and UCxN
>>v7
>> integration
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Lelio,
>>
>>
>>
>> When I migrated from 4.1(3) to 7.1(3), I tried the SIP trunk, because I
>> tought it would be simplier. I ran into a few issues and after
>>discussing
>> with my SE, he recommended the SCCP approach, as there are known issues
>>with
>> the SIP one. Nice to know ?before?. Maybe it was because I also had
>>another
>> SIP trunk to my legacy PBX through TIMG. Will never know, but SCCP works
>> fine for me.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sandy.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
>> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 4:36 PM
>> To: voyp list
>> Subject: [cisco-voip] SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and UCxN v7
>> integration
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm working on the migration from CUCM v4.1(3) to v7.1(x).
>>
>> I think it would be much simpler if I am able to create a SIP trunk from
>> CallManager v7 to Connection.
>>
>> Has anyone seen any huge differences between an SCCP and a SIP
>>integration?
>> Do things generally continue to work the same?
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
>> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
>> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
>> - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
>>
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <
>>
>>https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20101201/468786a
>>e/attachment-0001.html
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 23
>> Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 11:06:54 -0500
>> From: "Jason Aarons (US)" <jason.aarons at us.didata.com>
>> To: Sandy Lee <Sandy.Lee at dti.ulaval.ca>, Lelio Fulgenzi
>> <lelio at uoguelph.ca>, voyp list <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and
>> UCxN v7 integration
>> Message-ID:
>>
>>
>><4E38DB0A1959B04C8C83EDCF069B53ED0C81F59F0B at USISPCLEXDB01.na.didata.local
>> >
>>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> I?d like to know what the ?known SIP issues? are ? In general I still
>> stick with SCCP out of habit but I?d like to have known what was on
>>his/her
>> mind.
>>
>> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
>> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Sandy Lee
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 10:53 AM
>> To: Lelio Fulgenzi; voyp list
>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and UCxN
>>v7
>> integration
>>
>> Hi Lelio,
>>
>> When I migrated from 4.1(3) to 7.1(3), I tried the SIP trunk, because I
>> tought it would be simplier. I ran into a few issues and after
>>discussing
>> with my SE, he recommended the SCCP approach, as there are known issues
>>with
>> the SIP one. Nice to know ?before?. Maybe it was because I also had
>>another
>> SIP trunk to my legacy PBX through TIMG. Will never know, but SCCP works
>> fine for me.
>>
>> Sandy.
>>
>> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
>> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 4:36 PM
>> To: voyp list
>> Subject: [cisco-voip] SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and UCxN v7
>> integration
>>
>> I'm working on the migration from CUCM v4.1(3) to v7.1(x).
>>
>> I think it would be much simpler if I am able to create a SIP trunk from
>> CallManager v7 to Connection.
>>
>> Has anyone seen any huge differences between an SCCP and a SIP
>>integration?
>> Do things generally continue to work the same?
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
>> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
>> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
>> - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>> 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/20101201/8a39d15
>>f/attachment-0001.html
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 24
>> Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 11:10:35 -0500 (EST)
>> From: Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
>> To: "Jason Aarons (US)" <jason.aarons at us.didata.com>
>> Cc: voyp list <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and
>> UCxN v7 integration
>> Message-ID:
>> <
>> 1260310073.751122.1291219835303.JavaMail.root at simcoe.cs.uoguelph.ca>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> what I read in different spots was DTMF and compatibility with old SCCP
>> phones which would likely need an MTP.
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
>> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
>> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
>> - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
>>
>>
>>
>> From: "Jason Aarons (US)" <jason.aarons at us.didata.com>
>> To: "Sandy Lee" <Sandy.Lee at dti.ulaval.ca>, "Lelio Fulgenzi" <
>> lelio at uoguelph.ca>, "voyp list" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2010 11:06:54 AM
>> Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and UCxN
>>v7
>> integration
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I?d like to know what the ?known SIP issues? are ? In general I still
>>stick
>> with SCCP out of habit but I?d like to have known what was on his/her
>>mind.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
>> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Sandy Lee
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 10:53 AM
>> To: Lelio Fulgenzi; voyp list
>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and UCxN
>>v7
>> integration
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Lelio,
>>
>>
>>
>> When I migrated from 4.1(3) to 7.1(3), I tried the SIP trunk, because I
>> tought it would be simplier. I ran into a few issues and after
>>discussing
>> with my SE, he recommended the SCCP approach, as there are known issues
>>with
>> the SIP one. Nice to know ?before?. Maybe it was because I also had
>>another
>> SIP trunk to my legacy PBX through TIMG. Will never know, but SCCP works
>> fine for me.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sandy.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
>> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 4:36 PM
>> To: voyp list
>> Subject: [cisco-voip] SIP trunk vs. SCCP ports for CUCM v7 and UCxN v7
>> integration
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm working on the migration from CUCM v4.1(3) to v7.1(x).
>>
>> I think it would be much simpler if I am able to create a SIP trunk from
>> CallManager v7 to Connection.
>>
>> Has anyone seen any huge differences between an SCCP and a SIP
>>integration?
>> Do things generally continue to work the same?
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
>> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
>> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
>> - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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/20101201/8822eb7
>>f/attachment-0001.html
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>
>>
>> End of cisco-voip Digest, Vol 86, Issue 1
>> *****************************************
>>
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL:
><https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20101201/5e48a6e
>7/attachment-0001.html>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 16:34:42 -0300
>From: Marcus Queiroz <queiroz.marcus at gmail.com>
>To: cisco-voip <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>Subject: [cisco-voip] Cisco 2801 supports up to how many mb?
>Message-ID:
> <AANLkTikswyy+KOFctD4YeJFzQNfNwHfqcvUMyBngcvMD at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>Hello Friends, I have a doubt.
>
>Cisco 2801 supports up to how many mb?
>
>Thanks
>
>
>Marcus A. Queiroz
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL:
><https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20101201/c0a4a2f
>5/attachment-0001.html>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 6
>Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 11:41:17 -0800
>From: Scott Voll <svoll.voip at gmail.com>
>To: Marcus Queiroz <queiroz.marcus at gmail.com>
>Cc: cisco-voip <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Cisco 2801 supports up to how many mb?
>Message-ID:
> <AANLkTi=eijRio2NdY+o=J7hD664TV=tuhmf28dNL3JL2 at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>The answer is, it depends.
>
>are you just routing traffic between two interfaces? or do you have other
>services enabled? eg. voice, security, etc.
>
>Everything you enable on a router takes a hit on performance.
>
>according to
>http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps5854/prod_qas0900aecd
>80169bd6.htmla
>2801 with services enabled is recommended for only one T1. With that
>said, for what I normally have done in the past, I have pushed > 10mb on a
>2621, but i didn't have a lot of other stuff running on it either.
>
>So back to the original answer, It depends.
>
>Scott
>
>On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Marcus Queiroz
><queiroz.marcus at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hello Friends, I have a doubt.
>>
>> Cisco 2801 supports up to how many mb?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>> Marcus A. Queiroz
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20101201/2de89de
>9/attachment-0001.html>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 7
>Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 15:48:29 -0500 (EST)
>From: Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
>To: voyp list <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>Subject: [cisco-voip] creating vs routing over ICTs
>Message-ID:
>
><60090578.768073.1291236509667.JavaMail.root at simcoe.cs.uoguelph.ca>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>It's been a while, so thought I'd ask the list for some comments.
>
>As far as I remember, it's important to create intercluster trunks in a
>full mesh design, so that each subscriber is represented in the ICT of
>the other cluster. This is also explained here:
>
>http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/voicesw/ps556/products_tech_note091
>86a0080094729.shtml
>
>Because we have more than three subscribers in our clusters, we'll have
>two ICTs on each cluster to ensure the full mesh.
>
>However, I'm pretty sure you only have to route calls over one of them.
>
>
>
>---
>Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
>Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
>(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
>- LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
>
>
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL:
><https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20101201/197c4aa
>3/attachment-0001.html>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 8
>Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 17:39:15 -0500
>From: Wes Sisk <wsisk at cisco.com>
>To: Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
>Cc: voyp list <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] creating vs routing over ICTs
>Message-ID: <4CF6CE93.7020009 at cisco.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
>Yes.
>
>2 clusters::
>c1s1-s6
>s2s1-s6
>
>
>you could just create 1 ICT on each cluster. Point to the first 3
>servers of the remote cluster. Use a device pool that uses a cmgroup
>that includes the first 3 servers of the local cluster.
>
>This will work in all "recent versions" (i'm going to say >=6.x,
>roughly) of CUCM where we changed h225d to only run on nodes in the
>device pool.
>
>In older versions (4.x) creating the ICT created h225d on all nodes in
>cluster1. this allowed any node in cluster1 to initiate an h225 tcp
>session to clsuter2. if cluster2 received an h225 session from c1s4 and
>that was not configured as an ICT remote destination then cluster2 would
>reject the session and call would fail.
>
>/Wes
>
>Lelio Fulgenzi wrote:
>> It's been a while, so thought I'd ask the list for some comments.
>>
>> As far as I remember, it's important to create intercluster trunks in
>> a full mesh design, so that each subscriber is represented in the ICT
>> of the other cluster. This is also explained here:
>>
>>
>>http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/voicesw/ps556/products_tech_note09
>>186a0080094729.shtml
>>
>> Because we have more than three subscribers in our clusters, we'll
>> have two ICTs on each cluster to ensure the full mesh.
>>
>> However, I'm pretty sure you only have to route calls over one of them.
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
>> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
>> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
>> - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20101201/eab4265
>2/attachment-0001.html>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 9
>Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 14:07:59 -0800
>From: Christopher Trown <ctrown at uoregon.edu>
>To: Cisco VOIP <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>Subject: [cisco-voip] Anyone install on a IBM x3650-m2
>Message-ID: <4CF6C73F.2070502 at uoregon.edu>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
>
> Has anyone installed either CUPS 7.0 or UCCX 8.0 on an IBM
>x3650-M2? I don't have the exact versions handy, but using this server
>is allowed. The part number I ordered from IBM is 7947-AC1.
>
> The problem I encounter is that the installation errors out with:
>
>Validation Error on HSSI mode:
>7835I3 Validation Failure:
>Disk validation Error: Not enough disks found [0]
>expecting [2]
>
> The other errors are checks for 7845I3 systems.
>
> I have a case open with TAC, but was wondering if anyone here had
>run into this.
>
> There are definitely drives in the system. The RAID BIOS setup
>sees them and has even configured a virtual disk.
>
> Am I not loading the correct driver?
>
> I can't find anything at Cisco's site.
>
> Thanks for any clues.
>
>Chris...
>
>--
>A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
>Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
>A: Top-posting.
>Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
>-------------- next part --------------
>A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>Name: ctrown.vcf
>Type: text/x-vcard
>Size: 236 bytes
>Desc: not available
>URL:
><https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20101201/3e90130
>e/attachment-0001.vcf>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 10
>Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 17:52:53 -0600
>From: "Carter, Bill" <bcarter at sentinel.com>
>To: <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>Subject: [cisco-voip] MCS-7828 support UCCX 8.0
>Message-ID: <6819E340-4FEA-40B8-B635-F9936A596305 at sentinel.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>Can UCCX 8.X be installed on a MCS-7828 ?
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 11
>Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 18:25:09 -0600
>From: "Carter, Bill" <bcarter at sentinel.com>
>To: "Mike Lydick" <mike.lydick at gmail.com>
>Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Customizing Unity Connection Failed delivery
> message
>Message-ID: <E0EE854E-FC9F-4E46-9CAB-A0F69C178EE7 at sentinel.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>Sorry to barge in but I think I have the same issue.
>
>I have a CXN 8.0 server with 2200 users. Operational for about 4 weeks. I
>have seen about 200 NDRs sent to subscribers.
>
>No idea why msg delivery fails. How do I even view the NDRs?
>
>
>
>
>On Dec 1, 2010, at 11:41 AM, "Mike Lydick" <mike.lydick at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Is there a way to customize the response that a subscriber will receive
>>(smtp) if a message delivery fails. Currently the Sender receives a
>>generic message that indicates the delivery has failed but there are no
>>details why.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Mike Lydick
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20101201/23928e3
>d/attachment-0001.html>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 12
>Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 18:16:28 -0600
>From: "Carter, Bill" <bcarter at sentinel.com>
>To: "Wes Sisk" <wsisk at cisco.com>
>Cc: voyp list <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] creating vs routing over ICTs
>Message-ID: <4CAE7968-04A4-4555-B43C-C230113CE147 at sentinel.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>Wes, what is different from the new method vs. creating an ICT on each
>cluster pointing to a Gatekeeper (pair of GK in hsrp or GK and alt GK)?
>
>-Bill
>
>On Dec 1, 2010, at 4:40 PM, "Wes Sisk" <wsisk at cisco.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes.
>>
>> 2 clusters::
>> c1s1-s6
>> s2s1-s6
>>
>>
>> you could just create 1 ICT on each cluster.? Point to the first 3
>>servers of the remote cluster.? Use a device pool that uses a cmgroup
>>that includes the first 3 servers of the local cluster.
>>
>> This will work in all "recent versions" (i'm going to say >=6.x,
>>roughly) of CUCM where we changed h225d to only run on nodes in the
>>device pool.?
>>
>> In older versions (4.x) creating the ICT created h225d on all nodes in
>>cluster1.? this allowed any node in cluster1 to initiate an h225 tcp
>>session to clsuter2.? if cluster2 received an h225 session from c1s4
>>and that was not configured as an ICT remote destination then cluster2
>>would reject the session and call would fail.
>>
>> /Wes
>>
>> Lelio Fulgenzi wrote:
>>>
>>> It's been a while, so thought I'd ask the list for some comments.
>>>
>>> As far as I remember, it's important to create intercluster trunks in
>>>a full mesh design, so that each subscriber is represented in the ICT
>>>of the other cluster. This is also explained here:
>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/voicesw/ps556/products_tech_note0
>>>9186a0080094729.shtml
>>>
>>> Because we have more than three subscribers in our clusters, we'll
>>>have two ICTs on each cluster to ensure the full mesh.
>>>
>>> However, I'm pretty sure you only have to route calls over one of them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
>>> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
>>> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? - LFJ (with apologies to
>>>Mr. Popeil)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20101201/b7bf0f5
>8/attachment-0001.html>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 13
>Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 10:12:52 +0800
>From: Ki Wi <kiwi.voice at gmail.com>
>To: "Carter, Bill" <bcarter at sentinel.com>
>Cc: "<cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] MCS-7828 support UCCX 8.0
>Message-ID: <7F3D0A3D-90A9-48C7-A6A2-CEB76477459B at gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>This special breed should support cucmbe and cucm only
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>Pls pardon my fat fingers.
>
>On Dec 2, 2010, at 7:52 AM, "Carter, Bill" <bcarter at sentinel.com> wrote:
>
>> Can UCCX 8.X be installed on a MCS-7828 ?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 14
>Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 22:40:32 -0600
>From: Tim Frazee <tfrazee at gmail.com>
>To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>Subject: [cisco-voip] MCS-7845-I2-CCX2
>Message-ID:
> <AANLkTikjBZ_h1O-_vX1P7SHo+XWNFnLVNCeKaTygcjod at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>Group,
>
>I have a TAC Case that seems to be going nowhere and would like to poll
>the
>group:
>
>I am trying to install UCM 7.1.3.10000 (to upgrade to 3bSU2 later) but the
>installer will only tell me its not supported till very late in the
>install.
>
>>From the limited documentation I can see, this server should be
>>supported.
>Has anyone had any luck with using this server with UCM?
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL:
><https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20101201/6de2790
>6/attachment-0001.html>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 15
>Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 07:56:45 -0600
>From: David Zhars <dzhars at gmail.com>
>To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>Subject: [cisco-voip] Cisco 300 Series
>Message-ID:
> <AANLkTimwLSjecaV8n8M=E2UzULznEaVme74H_yvgfKPz at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>Anyone have any interaction with these? Do they run IOS or is it a
>rebranded Linksys box?
>The price point looks great, but I'm skeptical!
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL:
><https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20101202/3be283a
>6/attachment-0001.html>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 16
>Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 09:47:24 -0500
>From: Ryan Ratliff <rratliff at cisco.com>
>To: Christopher Trown <ctrown at uoregon.edu>
>Cc: Cisco VOIP <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Anyone install on a IBM x3650-m2
>Message-ID: <2DE8610C-A114-489F-9055-2B1E5D38BAD2 at cisco.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>Looking at
>http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/voicesw/ps6790/ps5748/ps378/pro
>duct_solution_overview0900aecd80091615.html...
>
>The 7947-AC1 part is just the chassis component included in all of the
>3650-M2 bundles. You should have ordered the 7947-PMx which includes all
>of the necessary components, based on the MCS equivalent you were going
>for. Table 1 lists these part numbers.
>
>-Ryan
>
>On Dec 1, 2010, at 5:07 PM, Christopher Trown wrote:
>
>
>
> Has anyone installed either CUPS 7.0 or UCCX 8.0 on an IBM
>x3650-M2? I don't have the exact versions handy, but using this server
>is allowed. The part number I ordered from IBM is 7947-AC1.
>
> The problem I encounter is that the installation errors out with:
>
>Validation Error on HSSI mode:
>7835I3 Validation Failure:
>Disk validation Error: Not enough disks found [0]
>expecting [2]
>
> The other errors are checks for 7845I3 systems.
>
> I have a case open with TAC, but was wondering if anyone here had
>run into this.
>
> There are definitely drives in the system. The RAID BIOS setup
>sees them and has even configured a virtual disk.
>
> Am I not loading the correct driver?
>
> I can't find anything at Cisco's site.
>
> Thanks for any clues.
>
>Chris...
>
>--
>A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
>Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
>A: Top-posting.
>Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
><ctrown.vcf>_______________________________________________
>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/20101202/b52577d
>5/attachment-0001.html>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 17
>Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 10:57:00 -0500
>From: Wes Sisk <wsisk at cisco.com>
>To: "Carter, Bill" <bcarter at sentinel.com>
>Cc: voyp list <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] creating vs routing over ICTs
>Message-ID: <4CF7C1CC.3010101 at cisco.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
>When CM registers with GK it registers only the nodes that in the CM
>group of the trunk device. CM advertises an ephemeral port rather than
>the standard h225 port (1720).
>
>This means devices ARQ the GK, GK returns one of server1:port1,
>server2:port2,server3:port3. When CM receives an h225 TCP session on
>portN CM knows that calls is from GK so treats the call with the
>properties configured for the GK device (CSS, etc.)
>
>When CM receives an h225 session on 1720 it has to lookup the source IP
>address to identify the proper treatment (CSS, etc.)
>
>Some of this is discussed here:
>http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/voice_ip_comm/cust_contact/contact_center/
>customer_voice_portal/srnd/3_1/vp31surv.html#wp1045036
>
>
>/Wes
>
>
>Carter, Bill wrote:
>> Wes, what is different from the new method vs. creating an ICT on each
>> cluster pointing to a Gatekeeper (pair of GK in hsrp or GK and alt GK)?
>>
>> -Bill
>>
>> On Dec 1, 2010, at 4:40 PM, "Wes Sisk" <wsisk at cisco.com
>> <mailto:wsisk at cisco.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> 2 clusters::
>>> c1s1-s6
>>> s2s1-s6
>>>
>>>
>>> you could just create 1 ICT on each cluster.? Point to the first 3
>>> servers of the remote cluster.? Use a device pool that uses a
>>> cmgroup that includes the first 3 servers of the local cluster.
>>>
>>> This will work in all "recent versions" (i'm going to say >=6.x,
>>> roughly) of CUCM where we changed h225d to only run on nodes in the
>>> device pool.?
>>>
>>> In older versions (4.x) creating the ICT created h225d on all nodes
>>> in cluster1.? this allowed any node in cluster1 to initiate an h225
>>> tcp session to clsuter2.? if cluster2 received an h225 session from
>>> c1s4 and that was not configured as an ICT remote destination then
>>> cluster2 would reject the session and call would fail.
>>>
>>> /Wes
>>>
>>> Lelio Fulgenzi wrote:
>>>> It's been a while, so thought I'd ask the list for some comments.
>>>>
>>>> As far as I remember, it's important to create intercluster trunks
>>>> in a full mesh design, so that each subscriber is represented in the
>>>> ICT of the other cluster. This is also explained here:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/voicesw/ps556/products_tech_note
>>>>09186a0080094729.shtml
>>>>
>>>> Because we have more than three subscribers in our clusters, we'll
>>>> have two ICTs on each cluster to ensure the full mesh.
>>>>
>>>> However, I'm pretty sure you only have to route calls over one of
>>>>them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
>>>> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
>>>> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
>>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? - LFJ (with apologies
>>>> to Mr. Popeil)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>-
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20101202/414fc83
>8/attachment-0001.html>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 18
>Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 11:18:56 -0500 (EST)
>From: Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
>To: voyp list <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>Subject: [cisco-voip] how to gather trace files on cucm v7....or which
> files rather...
>Message-ID:
>
><661280592.805040.1291306736205.JavaMail.root at simcoe.cs.uoguelph.ca>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>In v4, I'd browse to the trace directory and voila.
>
>How do I do this in v7?
>
>I've got as far as RTMT and browsing the trace files, but the first
>screen is connection, next screen shows other things, but I'm not sure
>which section gives me the files I'm looking for that has all the
>logging, you know, digits pressed, etc.
>
>
>
>---
>Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
>Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
>(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
>- LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
>
>
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL:
><https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20101202/d9c08ab
>f/attachment-0001.html>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 19
>Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 11:19:42 -0500 (EST)
>From: Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
>To: voyp list <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] how to gather trace files on cucm v7....or
> which files rather...
>Message-ID:
>
><1027546072.805100.1291306782699.JavaMail.root at simcoe.cs.uoguelph.ca>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>i _think_ it's the SDI traces I want, right?
>
>---
>Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
>Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
>(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
>- LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
>
>
>
>From: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
>To: "voyp list" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:18:56 AM
>Subject: how to gather trace files on cucm v7....or which files rather...
>
>
>In v4, I'd browse to the trace directory and voila.
>
>How do I do this in v7?
>
>I've got as far as RTMT and browsing the trace files, but the first
>screen is connection, next screen shows other things, but I'm not sure
>which section gives me the files I'm looking for that has all the
>logging, you know, digits pressed, etc.
>
>
>
>---
>Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
>Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
>(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
>- LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
>
>
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL:
><https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20101202/15f0d44
>0/attachment-0001.html>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 20
>Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 11:26:45 -0500 (EST)
>From: Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
>To: voyp list <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] how to gather trace files on cucm v7....or
> which files rather...
>Message-ID:
>
><1787076153.805575.1291307205326.JavaMail.root at simcoe.cs.uoguelph.ca>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>nevermind, wrong host. ugh.
>
>---
>Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
>Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
>(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
>- LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
>
>
>
>From: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
>To: "voyp list" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:19:42 AM
>Subject: Re: how to gather trace files on cucm v7....or which files
>rather...
>
>
>i _think_ it's the SDI traces I want, right?
>
>---
>Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
>Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
>(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
>- LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
>
>
>
>From: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
>To: "voyp list" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:18:56 AM
>Subject: how to gather trace files on cucm v7....or which files rather...
>
>
>In v4, I'd browse to the trace directory and voila.
>
>How do I do this in v7?
>
>I've got as far as RTMT and browsing the trace files, but the first
>screen is connection, next screen shows other things, but I'm not sure
>which section gives me the files I'm looking for that has all the
>logging, you know, digits pressed, etc.
>
>
>
>---
>Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
>Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
>(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
>- LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
>
>
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL:
><https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20101202/a0b9585
>4/attachment-0001.html>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 21
>Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 08:05:47 -0800
>From: Christopher Trown <ctrown at uoregon.edu>
>To: Cisco VOIP <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Anyone install on a IBM x3650-m2
>Message-ID: <4CF7C3DB.2000100 at uoregon.edu>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>On 12/1/2010 2:07 PM, Christopher Trown wrote:
>>
>>
>> Has anyone installed either CUPS 7.0 or UCCX 8.0 on an IBM
>> x3650-M2? I don't have the exact versions handy, but using this server
>> is allowed. The part number I ordered from IBM is 7947-AC1.
>>
>> The problem I encounter is that the installation errors out with:
>>
>> Validation Error on HSSI mode:
>> 7835I3 Validation Failure:
>> Disk validation Error: Not enough disks found [0]
>> expecting [2]
>>
>> The other errors are checks for 7845I3 systems.
>>
>> I have a case open with TAC, but was wondering if anyone here had
>> run into this.
>>
>> There are definitely drives in the system. The RAID BIOS setup
>> sees them and has even configured a virtual disk.
>>
>> Am I not loading the correct driver?
>>
>> I can't find anything at Cisco's site.
>>
>> Thanks for any clues.
>>
>
>
> So it looks that despite ordering what I had read to order, the
>systems were shipped with the incorrect RAID controller.
>
> Sigh...
>
>Chris...
>
>--
>A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
>Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
>A: Top-posting.
>Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
>-------------- next part --------------
>A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>Name: ctrown.vcf
>Type: text/x-vcard
>Size: 236 bytes
>Desc: not available
>URL:
><https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20101202/e159473
>2/attachment-0001.vcf>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>cisco-voip mailing list
>cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
>End of cisco-voip Digest, Vol 86, Issue 2
>*****************************************
More information about the cisco-voip
mailing list