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

[Erick Wellnitz]

I don't wan tto hijack this but we have a similar thing going on.

Our issue is that we use Extension Mobility exclusively in order to
eliminate as much MAC work as possible.  We don't wnat to assign a user to
the device but we also don't want to double up on licenses.  Even after an
upgrade to 9.1.2 and being able to set teh devices as 'public space' we
still run into the issue of doubling up because we also use mobility/SNR.

It would be interesting to know if anyone has found a way, besides
assigning an owner user id, to relieve the doubling up issue in an
organization using EM exclusively along with other licensed features.


On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Ryan Ratliff (rratliff) <rratliff at cisco.com
> wrote:

>  An upgrade to 9.1(2) will help in both the users with only EM enabled not
> getting assigned Essential licenses and the fact that owner user id cannot
> be set on an EM-enabled phone (CSCue14471), in addition to a bunch of bug
> fixes.
>
> -Ryan
>
>  On Oct 14, 2013, at 5:52 AM, Dana Tong <Dana_Tong at bridgepoint.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>   So I have a customer who has an early CUCM version (9.1.1.10000-11) and
> they have EM.****
>
>  They have CUWL standard licensing and the ELM is doubling up on UCL
> Enhanced licenses for devices and User Device Profiles.****
>
>
>  The “Owner User ID” field is greyed out and cannot be selected. The
> procedure to update was to:****
>  https://supportforums.cisco.com/thread/289688****
>
>
>  1.       Logout the user****
>  2.       Turn off EM on the device****
>  3.       Set the Owner ID****
>  4.       Turn on EM****
>  5.       Log the user back into the phone.****
>
>  Surely there’s a better way?!?! They have some 1300 logged in users at
> present.****
>
>
>  As another test, I exported all phones of type x. Updated the “Owner
> User ID” in the CSV and re-inserted the phone.****
>  The field is updated but the license count is not reflected when I click
> the “Update Usage Details” on the license page within CUCM.****
>
>  Does anyone else have a solution for fixing up this license calculation
> error in bulk?****
>
>  Cheers****
>  Dana****
>
>
>   *From:* cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] *On
> Behalf Of *Ryan Ratliff (rratliff)
> *Sent:* Friday, 11 October 2013 12:06 AM
> *To:* Tim Smith
> *Cc:* cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 9.x ELM and Owner ID
> *Importance:* High****
>   ** **
>  The intelligence to consolidate users and licenses is still in CUCM.  ELM
> just handles the distribution of licenses to clusters.  This is why ELM
> can't tell you which users/devices are consuming which license, just how
> many.  CUCM is still where you have to look to see what license an
> individual user or device is consuming.****
>  ** **
>   -Ryan****
>  ** **
>   On Oct 10, 2013, at 1:00 AM, Tim Smith <tim.smith at enject.com.au>****
>    wrote:****
>  ** **
>   Yeah I've actually done this and poor ELM is confused now, but happily
> "compliant"****
>   But I still don't think it's great, it kind of kills the usefulness of
> ELM****
>   ** **
>   I think ELM needs to be a bit smarter in how it calculates and
> reconciles licensing****
>   I think it should be primarily looking at users with device profiles
> and devices associated and working out lic that way (they would be active
> UC users)****
>   ** **
>   Cheers,****
>   ** **
>
> Tim
>
> ****
>
>
> On 10 Oct 2013, at 3:06 pm, "Nate VanMaren" <VanMarenNP at ldschurch.org>
> wrote:****
>
>  Remember a CUWL Standard user gets 10 devices per license.  So you could
> just assign all of your phones to one user that would end up with N/10 CUWL
> standard licenses.  That would easy to maintain, and probably less
> expensive than public space + user profile…****
>   ****
>  I haven’t migrated any CUWL PRO to 9.x yet, so I am not sure what their
> device entitlement really is.****
>   ****
>   *From:* cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net<cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net>
> ] *On Behalf Of *Tim Smith
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 09, 2013 5:30 PM
> *To:* Ryan Ratliff (rratliff)
> *Cc:* cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 9.x ELM and Owner ID****
>    ****
>  Thanks mate,****
>   ****
>  I’m ok with the structure (well I think it still needs work – so
> hopefully product team will continue to improve it)****
>   ****
>  In these scenario’s it’s usually 99% of the phones actually get logged
> into by 1 user (so they really do have a user and are not really public
> space) – it’s just as the admins use EM, they don’t keep track and update
> the physical devices to reflect this (as you’d expect – most people use EM
> as a deployment / roll out tool (instead of TAPS) these days so they don’t
> need to worry about linking physical phones to people)****
>   ****
>  There were also some good threads on the partner communities about this.*
> ***
>   ****
>  I’m more interested now in working around what is there. I have a few
> ideas.****
>   ****
>  -          I have a bulk login script, which logs people in, at the same
> time I could put in an AXL update to update owner ID as I go. (There is
> still on-going maintenance issue though)****
>  -          A proxy type login service (new front end for EM, could also
> take care of this)****
>  -          Or one of the PC based login systems (it could also do the
> AXL update)****
>  -          Also, just trying out assigning phones to single user.****
>   ****
>  I’ll do some more investigation!****
>   ****
>  Thanks for your comments so far!****
>   ****
>  Cheers,****
>
> Tim****
>   ****
>   *From:* Ryan Ratliff (rratliff) [mailto:rratliff at cisco.com<rratliff at cisco.com>
> ]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 10 October 2013 4:25 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
> *Importance:* High****
>    ****
>  I agree, and unfortunately our current licensing model is structured such
> that the public space phones consume a license just as they would if they
> were the only phone associated to a user with no additional features.  ***
> *
>   ****
>  -Ryan****
>   ****
>   On Oct 9, 2013, at 2:53 AM, Tim Smith <tim.smith at enject.com.au> wrote:**
> **
>   ****
>   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>****
>    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>
> 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> 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]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 8 October 2013 10:08 AM
> *To:* Tim Smith
> *Cc:* 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> 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
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip****
>     ****
>   _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip****
>
>        ****
>
>
> 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.****
>  ** **
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131014/3a80c3e9/attachment.html>