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

[Matt Slaga (AM)]

One correction:

Scalability:  I've had customers running Exchange UM with 100 ports simultaneously on a server (100 is the default voicemail port count) without a single problem.  At the same time, I've seen Unity servers have issues with 40-50 ports at the same time.  It all comes down to how it was installed and implemented.  If done correctly, you would not have issues in either case.

IM Integration:
Lync 2010 only supports one voicemail platform, and that is, of course, Exchange UM.  I know Jabber is going to be great, but it may be too late for many companies.


Another addition to your list:
Message transcribing:
Exchange has a limitation to the number of messages it can transcribe.  Basically, one message can be transcribed per minute per core.  If your server gets more than this, they are not transcribed.   They are not put in a queue either, as this is done after the message is received but before it is sent to the user.  If busy, transcribing is skipped and sent to the user's inbox.  Once it is sent, it will not go back and transcribe later.

However, the only alternative today with Unity Connection is the transcription service with Nuance where your message is forwarded to Nuance Corp where it is transcribed and returned back to your system.  This means all messages are transcribed.  For security concerns, that could be an issue, not to mention the ~ 5 minute delay to receive your voicemail message and of course the per-user licensing costs associated.  Hopefully CUC 9 will resolve this limitation and do it natively.

Thanks!
Matt



From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Grant Teague
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 2:16 PM
To: bill at hitechconnection.net
Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
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 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<mailto:bill at hitechconnection.net> <bill at hitechconnection.net<mailto: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<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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><mailto: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:grccie at gmail.com>]<mailto:[mailto:grccie at gmail.com<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><mailto: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<mailto:jason.aarons at dimensiondata.com><mailto:jason.aarons at dimensiondata.com<mailto:jason.aarons at dimensiondata.com>%3cmailto:jason.aarons at dimensiondata.com<mailto:3cmailto%3Ajason.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<mailto: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:3cmailto%3Acisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net>>> [mailto: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:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net>]><mailto:[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net<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<mailto: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<mailto:3cmailto%3Acisco-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<mailto: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:3cmailto%3Acisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net>>> [mailto: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:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net>]><mailto:[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net<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<mailto: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<mailto:3cmailto%3Acisco-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<mailto: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/20120227/dcac4d60/attachment.html>