[cisco-voip] LDAP UC vs CM

[Tim Smith]

Nah think your still ok.

Your just after this for CUCIMOC?
Shouldnt you just implement the number normalisation rules in OCS?

Cheers,

Tim

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Scott Voll <svoll.voip at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>> >
>> >
>
>