[cisco-voip] Unity Connection 8.5 Single Mailbox, any limitation?

[Ki Wi]

I see. My guess will be it is due to the domain admin access right
limitation.

Any valid LDAP account can search for any user in the domain, that's what
auto search is about I guess. However, to achieve UM (or single mailbox),
the account must have special rights and this right requirement varies
between 2003 and 2010 admin account. In 2003, the account just need some
sort of ability to send as any users in the domain. In 2010, you need
powershell do achieve that. I think those rights are "unique" in their
windows era so there's no compatibility between them.

On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Ryan West <rwest at zyedge.com> wrote:

>  The confusing part is that you can search both 2003 and 2010 mailboxes
> with one account and it will appear to work.  If it did work properly, a
> migration from 2003 to 2010 would be simple from the UM account perspective.
>
>
>
> *From:* Ki Wi [mailto:kiwi.voice at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, March 11, 2011 10:13 AM
>
> *To:* Ryan West
> *Cc:* Anthony Holloway; Cisco VoIP List
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Unity Connection 8.5 Single Mailbox, any
> limitation?
>
>
>
> The part just talk about the 2 available options during the initial
> integration. You choose auto search which i believe you had done or manually
> specific the exchange server location by ip or fqdn. Which part is
> confusing?
>
>
>
> Having 2 admin account for different exchange server is an option but I
> will avoid it. I'm working for SI, so I will just look for a way to spend
> the least amount of time at customer site as long as the customer is fine
> with the solution.
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> Pls pardon my fat fingers.
>
>
> On Mar 11, 2011, at 10:53 PM, Ryan West <rwest at zyedge.com> wrote:
>
>  Ki Wi,
>
>
>
> It’s interesting that you brought this up too.  Have a look here:
>
>
>
>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/voice_ip_comm/connection/8x/unified_messaging/guide/85xcucumg020.html#wp1198171
>
>
>
> You want to concentrate on Table 2-1 and not the bullet point that is two
> above it.  Single Inbox will allow you to configure a search for 2003 and
> 2010 mailboxes and by all accounts, it will work during testing.  After you
> import and enable a large user base the mailbox sync agent will crash and
> continue to crash until the 2003 and 2010 mailbox search is disabled.  The
> alternative is similar to what you’ve told your customer.  You can create
> two UM services account, one for 2003 and one for 2010 and as mailboxes are
> moved over, associate them to the proper UM account.  Here’s the bullet
> point that confused me:
>
>
>
> If you choose to allow Connection to search for Exchange servers, you can
> further choose whether Connection can access every mailbox in the Exchange
> organization, or just Exchange 2007 and Exchange 2010 mailboxes. When the
> Exchange organization includes Exchange 2003 servers, Connection always
> communicates directly with the Exchange back-end servers, it never
> communicates with Exchange front-end servers.
>
>
>
> -ryan
>
>
>
> *From:* Ki Wi [mailto:kiwi.voice at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, March 11, 2011 9:39 AM
> *To:* Ryan West
> *Cc:* Anthony Holloway; Cisco VoIP List
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Unity Connection 8.5 Single Mailbox, any
> limitation?
>
>
>
> It will be interacting with exchange 2010 but users will be on 2003 for the
> next 3 mth or so. It seems like unity connection can't track the user email
> account movement from 2003 to 2010 after migration. So I told the customer,
> let's integrate after everyone is on exchange 2010 or enable the single
> mailbox on adhoc basis after the user is moved to 2010.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> Pls pardon my fat fingers.
>
>
> On Mar 11, 2011, at 10:17 PM, Ryan West <rwest at zyedge.com> wrote:
>
>  Exchange 2003 or 2010?  My biggest hang-ups have been authentication at
> the virtual directory level.  The error information at the test screen can
> be less than helpful, you’ll need RTMT to gather the tomcat logs or save
> yourself some time by figuring out all your authentication schemes ahead of
> time.  For 2003, checking IIS is usually enough.  For 2010, I would trust
> powershell ‘Get-WebServicesVirtualDirectory | fl *auth*’
>
>
>
> HTH
>
>
>
> -ryan
>
>
>
> *From:* Ki Wi [mailto:kiwi.voice at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2011 10:47 PM
> *To:* Ryan West
> *Cc:* Anthony Holloway; Cisco VoIP List
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Unity Connection 8.5 Single Mailbox, any
> limitation?
>
>
>
> Great! I'm worried that email content is being sync as well.
>
>
>
> I have one upcoming deployment on this. Hope it's a smooth one.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> Pls pardon my fat fingers.
>
>
> On Mar 11, 2011, at 10:45 AM, Ryan West <rwest at zyedge.com> wrote:
>
>  There are synchronized copies of the voicemail messages only, so as you
> check them at your computer, the MWI light will go off and if it’s deleted
> from either side, it will be replicated.  The idea is AD/GC can be down, but
> you will still be able to receive and listen to messages and those messages
> will sync up once CAS or backend comes back online.
>
>
>
> -ryan
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] *On Behalf Of *Anthony Holloway
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2011 5:56 PM
> *To:* Ki Wi
> *Cc:* Cisco VoIP List
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Unity Connection 8.5 Single Mailbox, any
> limitation?
>
>
>
> Based on your comment, it sounds like there will be two copies of every
> email, and voicemail: one on exchange, and one on Unity.  That can't be
> right.  Is it?
>
>
>
> Anthony
>
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Ki Wi <kiwi.voice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> With Single Mailbox, it seems like e-mail content will replicated from
> exchange to CUC and voicemail will be replicated from CUC to exchange. Am I
> right?
>
> What if one day, the database size grows beyond CUC's mailbox datastore
> size? What will happen?
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110312/1cda856c/attachment.html>