[cisco-voip] LDAP UC vs CM

[stephen.welsh at unifiedfx.com]

I think you will be okay, but I found application dial-rules took a lot of trial and error to get the right digit match etc.
As you are not using the '+' in the directory, you may need to think a bit to make sure you only match the numbers you want.

Stephen


On 11 Oct 2010, at 23:39, Scott Voll wrote:

> We are integrating with AD LDAP tomorrow.  So if my telephone object is filled with E.164 (10 Digits not the +E.164) I should be able to do everything I need, CUCiMOC, and  Attendant Console with the Telephone integration.
> 
> Is that Correct?  Cisco docs say to go to the +E.164 standard, but OCS is not doing any voice stuff.  Just passing it to CUCiMOC
> 
> TIA
> 
> Scott
> 
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 3:27 PM, stephen.welsh at unifiedfx.com <stephen.welsh at unifiedfx.com> wrote:
> CUCiMOC does not get involved with OCS Normalisation, as you are not using OCS for voice.
> 
> You normally use Application Dial-rules for converting E.164 to 4 digits (or other internal extension formats)
> 
> Also, if I remember correctly, Directory Dial-Rules are used by Attendant Console for just the problem you describe, converting users extension numbers to their real 4 digit DN etc. for BLF etc.
> 
> Stephen
> 
> 
> On 11 Oct 2010, at 22:42, Tim Smith wrote:
> 
> > 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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20101012/34e268ff/attachment.html>