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

bill at hitechconnection.net bill at hitechconnection.net
Fri Feb 24 15:56:58 EST 2012 

Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.




On February 24, 2012 at 2:15 PM Grant Teague <grant.teague at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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 3rd-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 3rd-party voicemail systems
>
> Voicemail Interoperability
>
> a.       Microsoft Exchange UM does not support networking with 3rd-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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20120224/4c57aa13/attachment.html>

More information about the cisco-voip mailing list