[cisco-voip] CUCM 9.x ELM and Owner ID

[Tim Smith]

Thanks Ryan,

Sorry to keep banging on about this, but I'm still a bit confused.

I definitely don't want to get more licensing than we are entitled to.

I think from CUCM point of view, and based on below.
Phones without owners are essentially considered public space.

Phones with owners associated, would get attributed in the right place, i.e. CUWL standard, pro etc.

In extension mobility environments, usually none of our phones have owners associated.
So when we go to add CSF's for Jabber for instance, we come unstuck.

Cheers,

Tim

________________________________
From: Ryan Ratliff (rratliff) <rratliff at cisco.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 9 October 2013 1:41 AM
To: Tim Smith
Cc: Joe Martini (joemar2); cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 9.x ELM and Owner ID

I recommend when looking at the User Count Tool or whatever tool you are using to do your license migration (before the upgrade) you should count your public space phones as a separate user that will require a license.

I understand Licensing is being very generous for current migrations however I would pay careful attention to what you ask for and what you get as compared to what you currently pay for so there are no big surprises at your next renewal.

-Ryan

On Oct 8, 2013, at 10:25 AM, Tim Smith <tim.smith at enject.com.au<mailto:tim.smith at enject.com.au>>
 wrote:

Thanks Ryan

Does that mean we should ask licensing for a public space lic per em phone?

We don't actually need to buy more licenses right?

Cheers,

Tim


On 9 Oct 2013, at 1:09 am, "Ryan Ratliff (rratliff)" <rratliff at cisco.com<mailto:rratliff at cisco.com>> wrote:

As soon as you add SNR or a soft client to those users you have to double up on licenses to account for the public space phones.

Today that is the solution and when doing your DLU to ELM conversion you need to plan accordingly.

-Ryan

On Oct 7, 2013, at 7:33 PM, Tim Smith <tim.smith at enject.com.au<mailto:tim.smith at enject.com.au>> wrote:

Thanks Joe,

I have seen that one before, I'm not sure that is the same issue.

This is in regard to the physical phones not been allocated to a user. (i.e. assigning phones owner ID's)

This seems to cause a double up for me when I create CSF profiles.

Cheers,

Tim

From: Joe Martini [mailto:joemar2 at cisco.com<http://cisco.com/>]
Sent: Tuesday, 8 October 2013 10:08 AM
To: Tim Smith
Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 9.x ELM and Owner ID

Versions of CUCM that contain the fix for CSCue14471 no longer have this issue.
http://tools.cisco.com/Support/BugToolKit/search/getBugDetails.do?method=fetchBugDetails&bugId=CSCue14471

Joe

On Oct 7, 2013, at 6:00 PM, Tim Smith <tim.smith at enject.com.au<mailto:tim.smith at enject.com.au>> wrote:

Hi guys,

I've seen some discussion on this already
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/cisco/voip/172472?search_string=owner%20cuwl;#172472

Most clients do not assign owner ID as they use extension mobility.
(I will admit it is true that a lot of mobility users actually stay logged into the same phone and we could technically assign them as the owner)

Either way, I keep ending up with my licensing in ELM being out of balance due to having phones and CSF's.

The TAC answer to me was that I should assign an owner ID.

Am I missing something here? Is there another solution?

Cheers,

Tim.
_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20131009/ba8bd9f7/attachment.html>