[cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail

[Lelio Fulgenzi]

This is great. Thanks. 



--- 
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A. 
Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1 
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (ANNU) 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it. 
- LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil) 


----- Original Message -----
From: "Grant Teague" <grant.teague at gmail.com> 
To: bill at hitechconnection.net 
Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net 
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 2:15:41 PM 
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail 


Hi Bill 

Here is 10 reason why Unity CxN over Exchange 2010. 


Separate Message Store for Discovery and Compliance Purposes 

a. Exchange UM stores email and voicemail on the same server 

b. Unity Connection stores voice messages separately from the email store overcoming legal discoverability concerns 

Enterprise Scalability 

a. Exchange UM experiences issues at as low as 40 ports in use per server (MCS 7845 equivalent) 

b. Unity Connection 8.6 scales to 250 ports per server (MCS 7845 equivalent) 

Virtualization Support 

a. Microsoft announced support for virtualization in May 2011. Requires 4 physical processor cores at all times. 

b. Unity Connection 8.6 supports virtualization on Cisco UCS, HP, and IBM platforms 

Environmental Dependencies 

a. Exchange UM depends on Active Directory and 3 Exchange server roles to operate 

b. Unity Connection offers optional integrations with Active Directory and Microsoft Exchange (TTS, calendaring, import contacts) 

High Availability 

a. Microsoft requires 4x the number of servers to achieve an equivalent SLA as Unity Connection (2 GC’s, 2 Mailbox servers, 2 UM servers, 2 Hub Transport servers) 

b. Unity Connection provides 2-server Active/Active clustering solutions for High Availability 

Architecture 

a. Exchange UM supports centralized messaging only, no SRSV-like functionality. There’s no support of networking with 3 rd -party voicemail systems 

b. Unity Connection 8.6 supports both centralized and distributed messaging, SRST, SRSV, and supports networking with other Cisco voicemail systems and 3 rd -party voicemail systems 

Voicemail Interoperability 

a. Microsoft Exchange UM does not support networking with 3 rd -party voicemail systems. 

b. Cisco Unity Connection supports VPIM networking 

Client Support 

a. Exchange UM supports Outlook, OWA, OVA, ASR, Windows Mobile, and other mobile clients via mp3 

b. Unity Connection supports Outlook, OWA, Lotus Notes, numerous other IMAP clients. Unity Inbox, Cisco Jabber, Visual Voicemail, IBM Lotus Sametime, CUPC, mobile clients via CUMC/CUMA, RSS Feeds 

Secure Messaging 

a. Exchange UM requires Rights Management Service (RMS) for private messages (additional server, license) 

b. Natively supports secure, private messaging and optionally also securely deletes messages from hard drive 

Calendaring 

a. Exchange UM supports calendaring in Exchange 2007 and 2010 

b. Unity Connection supports calendaring in Exchange 2003, 2007, and 2010 

hope this helps. 

regards 

Grant 


On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 1:29 PM, bill at hitechconnection.net < bill at hitechconnection.net > wrote: 





So I still don’t see a compelling reason to tell a customer not to go with Exchange 2010 and dump Unity / Unity Connection if they already own the E-CAL for exchange 2010 as part of their EA agreement with Microsoft? To tell them they have more nobs to turn is not going to go very far. I am looking for real technical limitations of Exchange 2010 Vs. Unity Connection. 



On February 23, 2012 at 5:03 PM Nate VanMaren < VanMarenNP at ldschurch.org > wrote: 

> It’s not very bad at all. But Unity Connection 8.5+ is a much more full featured voicemail system, and you get nice single inbox. There are a lot more knobs in Connection to control how stuff works. 
> 
> Just depends on the needs. 
> 
> From: bill at hitechconnection.net [mailto: bill at hitechconnection.net ] 
> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 2:14 PM 
> To: Jason Aarons (AM); Nate VanMaren; Gr 
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net 
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So beside these two things why is the Exchange 2010 UM so bad? I am having a hard time from a competitive standpoint convincing someone NOT to dump unity / unity connection and move directly to Exchange 2010 UM when they have the E-CAL already as part of their enterprise agreement. 
> 
> 
> 
> On February 17, 2012 at 5:02 PM Nate VanMaren < VanMarenNP at ldschurch.org <mailto: VanMarenNP at ldschurch.org >> wrote: 
> 
> > Yea there isn’t really “ports” that you have to worry about on the SIP integrations, just max number of calls. 
> > 
> > You will still need a VM pilot and profile, and then a route pattern that points to the sip trunk that is pointed at exchange UM. 
> > 
> > http://www.agileit.com/Blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=820 
> > 
> > http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?id=13591 
> > 
> > 
> > From: Gr [mailto: grccie at gmail.com ]<mailto:[mailto: grccie at gmail.com ]> 
> > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 3:00 PM 
> > To: Jason Aarons (AM); Nate VanMaren 
> > Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net <mailto: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net > 
> > Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail 
> > 
> > Thanks Nate, Jason! Valuable information, I will keep this in mind. 
> > 
> > Another question is we just create voice mail pilot in cucm and route it to sip trunk and then in exchange 2010 we create voice mail pilot and the actual voice mail ports? 
> > 
> > Thanks, 
> > GR 
> > 
> > 
> > Sent from my iPhone 
> > 
> > On 18/02/2012, at 4:35 AM, "Jason Aarons (AM)" < jason.aarons at dimensiondata.com <mailto: jason.aarons at dimensiondata.com <mailto: jason.aarons at dimensiondata.com % 3cmailto:jason.aarons at dimensiondata.com >>> wrote: 
> > I think I understand that Exchange 2010 has a crappy sip stack. Good info. <lol> 
> > 
> > From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net <mailto: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net <mailto: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net % 3cmailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net >> [mailto: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net ]<mailto:[mailto: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net ]><mailto:[mailto: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net ]> On Behalf Of Nate VanMaren 
> > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 11:03 AM 
> > To: gr11; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net <mailto: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net <mailto: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net % 3cmailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net >> 
> > Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail 
> > 
> > 
> > Two things off the top of my head. 
> > 
> > 
> > 1. Exchange has a crappy sip stack. So you have to use a MTP on the SIP trunk because it won’t deal with RTP source/destination changes in a session. Like when someone does a supervised transfer to voicemail. 
> > 
> > 2. Exchange has a crappy sip stack. So if you want correct caller name on the voicemail on call transferred to voicemail, you have to run the transfer through an app that waits for the transferee to complete the transfer to send the call to exchange. 
> > 
> > Voicemail preview takes a lot of hardware. I think our boxes are quad core with 8/16gb of ram and 4-5 calls will max out the CPU. 
> > 
> > -Nate 
> > 
> > From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net <mailto: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net <mailto: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net % 3cmailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net >> [mailto: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net ]<mailto:[mailto: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net ]><mailto:[mailto: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net ]> On Behalf Of gr11 
> > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:17 PM 
> > To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net <mailto: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net <mailto: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net % 3cmailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net >> 
> > Subject: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail 
> > 
> > Hi List, 
> > 
> > I am providing the CUCM8.5 integration with exchange 2010 for a customer for their voice mail needs. The customer has an old unity server that will be decommissioned and voice mail functionality will be provided by exchange 2010 UM. 
> > 
> > Anyone who has done this before, any pitfalls or things to be aware of? We are going to use a third party gateway for SIP Trunk termination to/from CUCM and exchange 
> > 
> > Thanks, 
> > GR 
> > 
> > 
> > NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > itevomcid 
_______________________________________________ 
cisco-voip mailing list 
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net 
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip 




-- 
keep living the dream 

_______________________________________________ 
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/20120224/24de3b0e/attachment.html>