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

bill at hitechconnection.net bill at hitechconnection.net
Mon Feb 27 08:47:43 EST 2012 

Thanks for the response. I also think Jabber may be too late or they will
have to start pushing it very heavy to beat out Lync at this point. This
could be even worse if you had a customer that deployed the older version
of CUPC and then tried to compare that to Lync.



I also think the whole sending your voicemail to Nuance is so strange. I
understand what they are trying to accomplish but some organizations will
not want to send that out of their office to be transcribed by a third
party. I wonder if this is on the road map to be implemented locally? Also
isn’t this something you have to pay extra for with Unity Connection where
with Exchange 2010 UM it is “included” in the CAL?






On February 27, 2012 at 8:29 AM "Matt Slaga (AM)"
<matt.slaga at dimensiondata.com> wrote:

> 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/20120227/8ae7a34f/attachment.html>

More information about the cisco-voip mailing list