[cisco-voip] LDAP UC vs CM

[Scott Voll]

E164 is nice but that kills the Attendant Console that needs the 4 digits.

our Telephone object (in AD)  is controlled by HR and is the full 10 digit
number.  and we will be adding the +E.164 for the IP Phone object for
CUCiMOC.

So I'm kind of up a creek is what I think I'm understanding?!?

Scott

On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Tim Smith <smithsonianwa at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yeah that is pretty cool. I dont think there is an option in CUCM to
> do that though.
>
> In general I think most people are heading towards putting E164
> numbers in Active Directory, and maybe a shorter local or global
> extension in the ip phone field.
>
> In terms of automating this bit though, you can use LDIF or other
> scripting to modify the AD records in bulk. To clean it up before
> sucking it in. I think this is a nice approach.
>
> One of the other things I like about the UC "sync" is it lets you add
> users via local, AXL and LDAP sync at the same time. I think CUCM
> could learn something from this :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tim.
>
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 7:30 AM, Scott Voll <svoll.voip at gmail.com> wrote:
> > When integrating UC with AD LDAP there is the setting "advanced LDAP
> > Settings" where you can setup the user extesnion regular expression.
> > Is there something like that in CM?  Where?
> > TIA
> > Scott
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20101011/1ef5116e/attachment.html>