[cisco-voip] Feature Request to fix Licensing issues with EM

[Anthony Holloway]

It's funny that you have Lelio listed as Mamma in your email.

First, and I'm really asking this, if you are 100% EM, then why would you
put a username on a phone?  It should be blank, and thus classified as a
public space phone (known as Anonymous in later versions of CUCM).

Second, I'm not going to pretend I understand Cisco's licensing migration
process.  I get burned every time.  I think part of the confusion is that
it's not automatic, and it's subjective.  You can literally just argue your
way to more licensing, making the LCU pointless.  Granted, you'll shoot
yourself in the foot when the maintenance bill comes, but it's possible
nonetheless.

Lastly, if this were a greenfield project, and you had 100 phones with 100%
EM, then you would only need to buy 100 UCL Enhanced licenses to cover the
phones themselves, and they would not have owner user IDs, just anonymous.
Then, if you need your employees, say you had 100 also, to have iPad,
iPhone, CSF, etc, you would need to buy another license for each user.  To
make it easy, say each person had three devices, then you'll need 100 CUWL
Standard.  So, at the end of the day, you end up with 200 licenses (100 UCL
Enhanced + 100 CUWL Standard).  However, if you wanted to play the
licensing game, you would just not buy the 100 Enhanced, and assign each
person a random phone, because their CUWL Standard would cover it.  The
negative is that the UCM User page, and their Jabber client on the PC/Mac,
would show this random phone for them to manage.

I think....

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Scott Voll <svoll.voip at gmail.com> wrote:

> We are 100% EM in CM 8.6.  Now I have to associate phones to Users so I
> can get the licensing that I have support on.  1000 users rather than 1600
> phones. (450 are soft clients).  Since I'm licensed for 1000 I have to
> "true up" my licensing ($24k).  so if convert over to CUWL for 1000 why
> should I buy more licensing that I already have? thus working through the
> association of devices to users.
>
> So now I'm stuck in a Associating user / device nightmare.  which I can
> work through.  But now I have to keep my associations current moving
> forward (we move users often) so I don't get out of Licensing complainants
> again.
>
> Scott
>
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Anthony Holloway <
> avholloway+cisco-voip at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Can you briefly explain this EM licensing nightmare?  I'm not sure I'm
>> aware of it.
>>
>> Also, it sounds like what you are describing, implies that license
>> compliance checks are run frequently and multiple times throughout the day,
>> and to my knowledge they are not.  How else would you keep up with all of
>> the logging in and out of devices, unless the license compliance check was
>> run in real time?  Which was probably how it worked prior to ELM.  Just
>> spitballing a few ideas.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 1:29 PM Scott Voll <svoll.voip at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> OK, everyone has complained about the licensing nightmare that EM plays
>>> in CM 9 and 10.
>>>
>>> My coworker has come up with a fix......
>>>
>>>
>>> In thinking this all through, I thought about how I would like it all to
>>> work mechanically.  Here is what I would like to request as a
>>> Feature/Enhancement Request:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> When I log into a device for the first time with Extension Mobility, I
>>> am assigned as the device owner.  That ownership is retained until one of
>>> two things happen:
>>>
>>> 1.        I log into another like device (i.e.: I have a 8861 at my
>>> desk, and I log into Scott’s 8861 at his desk)
>>>
>>> 2.        Someone else logged into my device.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This way, the ownership of the device is always assigned by the
>>> extension mobility profile and follows the user.  If I have an iPhone, IPad
>>> or Jabber or other such device, since those all require a user to log in,
>>> the ownership would be added in the same way.  This would mitigate the
>>> licensing issues caused by extension mobility (in my opinion).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Using this would really simplify the licensing requirements in my
>>> thinking.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Any thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20150917/d6ca7351/attachment.html>