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

Scott Voll svoll.voip at gmail.com
Fri Feb 24 16:55:03 EST 2012 

the two big things for us..... end up being discovery......
and Transferring calls and call handlers...... Something Exchange has had
issues with in the past.  don't know if that has been fixed.

Scott

On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 12:56 PM, bill at hitechconnection.net <
bill at hitechconnection.net> wrote:

> **
>
>    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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120224/620f1861/attachment.html>

More information about the cisco-voip mailing list