[cisco-voip] ELM and license allocation

[Ted Nugent]

I was also asked this today, I'd like to know what others are doing as
well. It would appear that from an ELM perspective doubling licenses is the
only way around this?


On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Erick Wellnitz <ewellnitzvoip at gmail.com>wrote:

> I am aware of devices without user id assigned.  Which brings me to
> another question.
>
> What are others doing where the entire organization uses extension
> mobility as well as SNR?  The way we're doing it  costs us double in
> licenses.
>
> By not assigning physical devices we don't need to waste valuable time and
> resources moving physical devices when someone changes locations.
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Erick B. <erickbee at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Maybe there are devices with the owner ID, etc not set.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Erick Wellnitz <ewellnitzvoip at gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Right in front of my face is the synch buton.
>>>
>>> It's going to be a long day.  ;)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Erick Wellnitz <
>>> ewellnitzvoip at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I know I need to RTM...
>>>>
>>>> How does ELM allocate nad release licenses?  I think there is something
>>>> wrong but I'm not sure.  We look to be using a lot more licenses than we
>>>> should be.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130924/3384094c/attachment.html>