[cisco-voip] Cisco Voice AND M$ Lync

[Erick Wellnitz]

I did as well without major issue.  The account team's major reason was the
not-so-standard standards based sip implementation by MS.  It was also much
easier to set up both G711 and G729 with the CUBE in between.



On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Matt Slaga (AM) <
matt.slaga at dimensiondata.com> wrote:

> That is quite interesting.  I’ve done dozens of Lync and Cisco UC
> integrations and never needed a CUBE in-between.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] *On Behalf Of *Erick Wellnitz
> *Sent:* Friday, March 22, 2013 1:03 PM
> *To:* Brent Pollock
> *Cc:* Cisco VoIP List
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Cisco Voice AND M$ Lync****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> My experience with the integration is with the audio portions.****
>
>  ****
>
> First and foremost, you must use CUBE to integrate CUCM with Lync due to
> Microsoft's "standards" based SIP implementation.  Microsoft, as usual, put
> their own spin on the SIP standards which makes the integration flaky at
> best and the CUBE can do manipulations a direct SIP trunk cannot.  I had
> QoS configured but still had issues with voice quality when using Lync
> conferencing via CUCM.  The last issue I encountered was Lync's logging
> features.  The logs would never point to a problem and the logs were
> enormous.****
>
>  ****
>
> Remember as well that Lync is all software...and is on Windows.  It also
> took us forever to get the edge servers working properly for external use.
> We had three different Premier field engineers on site and got different
> answers from each as to what we needed to change.  All said, the basic
> functins wored well but the "UC" functions never quite worked right with
> Lync.****
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Brent Pollock <hashtagvoip at gmail.com>
> wrote:****
>
> Any issues as a result of SIP integration documented? I have been making
> this arguement for about 6 months. We have an extensive Cisco VoIP
> infrastructure and a Lync system support a subset of users for IM only. The
> lync system is also "federated" with a group of users we have in office
> 365. There have been fears that the integration to office in the cloud will
> suffer as a result of the replacement of messenger with skype. Instead of
> going with my initial instinct and negatively speak on Lync, I have decided
> to take a positive approach and present the positives of both products. I
> will also be making it clear the limitation that are presented by
> attempting a presence integration to Lync for phone status.****
>
> ** **
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Erick Wellnitz <ewellnitzvoip at gmail.com>
> wrote:****
>
> I did on my last project.  It was an easy sell for Jabber on the technical
> front thanks to the Cisco account team.  My problem was that a prior
> employee promised the executives the moon, stars, planets, comets, nebula
> and pulsars with Lync so that investment had already been made.****
>
>  ****
>
> Your account team should be able to get you a feature comparison.****
>
>  ****
>
> If someone tries to get you to integrate Lync and CUCM via SIP...run
> away!  It is a nightmare.****
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Brent Pollock <hashtagvoip at gmail.com>
> wrote:****
>
> Anyone out there fight the Lync vs Jabber battle? Currently working on a
> presentation on features of both as well as what can be delivered using
> both. Anyone care to share suggestions or reference material?
>
> TIA****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
>
>
>
> itevomcid ****
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130322/40ff138f/attachment.html>