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

[Ryan Huff]

Well now .... look at that shiny toy. 

I came up with my Excel spreadsheet back when 9.1 came out as I had 10k of phones to deal with at the time, simple and it just worked so I stuck with it. Nice to see there is an official tool for it though.

Good stuff Anthony, thanks!

-Ryan

Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:34:54 -0500
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Feature Request to fix Licensing issues with EM
From: avholloway+cisco-voip at gmail.com
To: ryanhuff at outlook.com
CC: svoll.voip at gmail.com; lelio at uoguelph.ca; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net

Ryan,
It sounds like you haven't seen/used the DAT?
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/udat/userguide/UDAT_BK_U1401523_00_device-assignment-tool-user-guide.html

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Ryan Huff <ryanhuff at outlook.com> wrote:



Scott,

The DLU <-> CUWL license model change was and continues to be a significant change for customers; no arguments there. 

However, once you make it to the other side, the CUWL licensing model makes a lot more sense and is ultimately easier to manage and predict usage. Having said that; there are techniques you can use to make the 'true-up' (associating devices to users) process a little less painful. 

For instance, you can use BAT to export a user list and device list. By using Excel pivot tables and a little join magic you can usually come up with a device re-import that will slap user associations on the devices (beats clicking through 1,000+ devices in GUI). If you have IM & Presence, you could do something similar for line ownership (needed for line presence).


Thanks,

Ryan

Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 11:55:54 -0700
From: svoll.voip at gmail.com
To: avholloway+cisco-voip at gmail.com; lelio at uoguelph.ca
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Feature Request to fix Licensing issues with EM
CC: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net

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





_______________________________________________
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/20150917/05206b50/attachment.html>