[cisco-voip] [External] Re: CCX phone agent over MRA?

[Hunter Fuller]

Basically, a bug in that release would cause all of the AXL/SOAP/other API
requests to take longer and longer, and use more and more CPU. Not only
does Jabber utilize these API calls, but so do a TON of our internal
processes - including the link we just sent out to our thousands of
faculty+staff that automatically makes them a Jabber device when they click
it. API calls that used to take half a second started taking 2 minutes.
Jabber logins would take minutes. Eventually the CPU on that CUCM box would
get so high that it would start dropping signalling, phones would start
reregistering, and we would have to reload that CUCM node. Adding CPU
helped, but did not completely alleviate the issue, just made it take
longer to get wedged like this.

--
Hunter Fuller
Router Jockey
VBH Annex B-5
+1 256 824 5331

Office of Information Technology
The University of Alabama in Huntsville
Network Engineering


On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 9:33 PM Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca> wrote:

> What’s bleeding out?
>
>
>
> *From:* Hunter Fuller <hf0002 at uah.edu>
> *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2020 10:27 PM
> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
> *Cc:* Wakelin, Frank <FWakelin at richmond.ca>; voyp list, cisco-voip <
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [External] Re: [cisco-voip] CCX phone agent over MRA?
>
>
>
> Oh yeah, I forgot to mention one thing. We were on CUCM 11.5(1)SU2 and it
> didn't need this setting on Expressway. We had to do an emergency upgrade
> to 11.5(1)SU6 to stop CUCM bleeding out from too many Jabber clients, and
> this version did need the setting on Expressway. If this change was
> documented somewhere, I didn't know where. So that was great.
>
>
> --
> Hunter Fuller
> Router Jockey
> VBH Annex B-5
> +1 256 824 5331
>
> Office of Information Technology
> The University of Alabama in Huntsville
> Network Engineering
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 8:45 PM Hunter Fuller <hf0002 at uah.edu> wrote:
>
> We just got off of a TAC call concluding the same thing, but I didn't know
> it was only 88xx phones, or that it was only for the secondary lines.
>
>
>
> The symptom we were troubleshooting was that CUCM would try to ring the
> MRA phone, and Expressway would return 404 (on behalf of that phone). We
> toggled on the header option and reset the phone to fix it. Hope that level
> of detail helps someone.
>
>
> --
> Hunter Fuller
> Router Jockey
> VBH Annex B-5
> +1 256 824 5331
>
> Office of Information Technology
> The University of Alabama in Huntsville
> Network Engineering
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 8:41 PM Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>
> Wow. Interesting. Will have to read the X10.4 (*cough*) guide to see if a
> similar feature exists.
>
>
>
> Thanks for this.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Mar 23, 2020, at 9:29 PM, Wakelin, Frank <FWakelin at richmond.ca> wrote:
>
> Absolutely, here’s what Aman sent me:
>
>
>
> Anther thing of note is use of *SIP Path header* on Expressway C. This
> may be needed to turned on if you multiple lines on 88xx phone. I have seen
> an issue when were we not able to ring second line on the phone when this
> was turned off on Expressway C.
>
>
>
> You will need that turned up on Expressway C under unified communication -
> configuration.
>
>
>
> I ran into this in testing in my environment few days back.
>
>
>
> There are certain version requirements to have this turned on with CUCM.
> Page 33
>
>
>
>
> https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/expressway/config_guide/X8-11/Mobile-Remote-Access-via-Expressway-Deployment-Guide-X8-11-4.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Frank Wakelin – Senior Network Analyst
>
> Information Technology | City of Richmond
>
>
>
> Office +16042764190
>
> Mobile +17788394693
>
> fwakelin at richmond.ca
>
>
>
> *From:* Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
> *Sent:* March 23, 2020 6:23 PM
> *To:* Wakelin, Frank <FWakelin at richmond.ca>
> *Cc:* voyp list, cisco-voip <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] CCX phone agent over MRA?
>
>
>
>
>
> Um, so, outside of ccx, getting multiline 8800s working over MRA requires
> extra config?
>
>
>
> Can you share any tech notes ?
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Mar 23, 2020, at 8:53 PM, Wakelin, Frank <FWakelin at richmond.ca> wrote:
>
> Yeah, once again as it turns out it was the Cisco TAC engineer not really
> knowing the product they are apparently supporting – which is fine, but
> they also never escalated the call to someone who does when the question
> was over their head either. – heavy sigh –
>
>
>
> As it turns out we generally configure all of our agents contact centre
> lines as their second line.  After my post Aman reached out to me with a
> note about the use of the *SIP Path header* on Expressway C as this is
> needed to support multiple lines on 88xx phone. The lack of multiline
> support was what was killing the call to the agent extension (on the second
> line of the phone) when it was presented by CCX.  I had a chance to enable
> the SIP path header today and successfully tested CCX.
>
>
>
> So thanks all for your assistance and more so your insistence that this is
> supported/working in your environments.  Thanks Aman for the mention of the
> SIP path header!
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Frank Wakelin – Senior Network Analyst
>
> Information Technology | City of Richmond
>
>
>
> Office +16042764190
>
> Mobile +17788394693
>
> fwakelin at richmond.ca
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip <cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net> *On Behalf Of *Anthony
> Holloway
> *Sent:* March 23, 2020 5:02 PM
> *To:* NateCCIE <nateccie at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* voyp list, cisco-voip <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] CCX phone agent over MRA?
>
>
>
> Yep, remote control via SIP from CUCM.
>
>
>
> I just tried this again but on a CUCM 11.5, UCCX 12.0 and Expressway
> X12.5.5.
>
>
>
> I pulled the traces off of two phones: one on-prem, one MRA, and the
> messages were the same.
>
>
>
> This was Finesse telling the phone (Agent ext 2000) to answer a call, and
> thus CUCM using out of dialog REFER containing remote call control commands
> to answer the call.
>
>
>
> REFER
> sip:e367249a-d9c8-4fbc-8f79-33b3e1be127f at 10.1.75.44:50868;transport=tcp
> SIP/2.0^M
> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 10.1.70.110:5060;branch=z9hG4bKec56650110b79^M
> From: <sip:2000 at 10.1.70.110>;tag=790972480^M
> To: <sip:2000 at 10.1.75.44>^M
> Call-ID: 4412b800-e7914b99-de968-6e46010a at 10.1.70.110^M
> CSeq: 101 REFER^M
> Max-Forwards: 70^M
> Contact: <sip:2000 at 10.1.70.110:5060;transport=tcp>^M
> User-Agent: Cisco-CUCM11.5^M
> Require: norefersub^M
> Expires: 0^M
> Refer-To: cid:1234567890 at 10.1.70.110^M
> Content-Id: <1234567890 at 10.1.70.110>^M
> Content-Type: application/x-cisco-remotecc-request+xml^M
> Referred-By: <sip:2000 at 10.1.70.110>^M
> Content-Length: 340^M
> ^M
>
> <x-cisco-remotecc-request>
>
>  <answercallreq>
>    <dialogid>
>      <callid>42e18b00-e7914b97-de965-6e46010a at 10.1.70.110</callid>
>
>  <localtag>2490017~9e5ce725-d89d-4564-a3be-db63e3605d34-42471213</localtag>
>      <remotetag>ec1d8bbaebe266b0246fba9d-5a3ccd67</remotetag>
>    </dialogid>
>  </answercallreq>
>
> </x-cisco-remotecc-request>
>
>
>
> Or if you're interested, here's what the XML looks like when the user
> makes an outgoing call with Finesse's dial pad to extension 2500.
>
>
>
> <x-cisco-remotecc-request>
>
>   <initiatecallreq>
>      <dialstring>2500</dialstring>
>      <linenumber>1</linenumber>
>      <globalcallid>1-812082</globalcallid>
>   </initiatecallreq>
>
> </x-cisco-remotecc-request>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 4:23 PM NateCCIE <nateccie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I could be confused but I don’t think the phones talk CTI or CTI-QBE, they
> just talk SIP/SCCP.  UCCX talks CTI to CUCM’s CTI manager which then tells
> the phone to do something.  I know CTI isn’t supported over MRA, but that
> is for deskphone control from Jabber, not the jabber softclient.
>
>
>
> I have people using CCE via thin client talking to a MRA registered
> jabber.  Now that I think of it, they said you can’t use Jabber for mobile
> because as an agent device, but I would think that is some other limitation.
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip <cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net> *On Behalf Of *Wakelin,
> Frank
> *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2020 2:49 PM
> *To:* 'Aman Chugh' <aman.chugh at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip at puck.nether.net) <
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] CCX phone agent over MRA?
>
>
>
> I’m not really sure – I have my doubts as well.  They sited the lack of
> CTI-QBE support as to why the CCX servers could not use CTI to control the
> phones connected over MRA.  The more folks that tell me they had it working
> with CCX, the more I think they just latched on to the phrase in the
> feature configuration guide and went with that.  It certainly wouldn’t be
> the first time TAC has given me a pat answer and been unwilling to
> escalate/troubleshoot with me. L
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Frank Wakelin – Senior Network Analyst
>
> Information Technology | City of Richmond
>
>
>
> Office +16042764190
>
> Mobile +17788394693
>
> fwakelin at richmond.ca
>
>
>
> *From:* Aman Chugh <aman.chugh at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* March 23, 2020 1:43 PM
> *To:* Wakelin, Frank <FWakelin at richmond.ca>
> *Cc:* voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip at puck.nether.net) <
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] CCX phone agent over MRA?
>
>
>
> Just curious as to what makes it unsupported with 11.5 or what is added in
> 12 which makes it supported.
>
>
>
> Does SIP phone doing MRA require support for certain sip headers which are
> only supported with CSR 12 or later.
>
>
>
> I did have it working with CUCM 10.5 , UCCE 11.6 and Expressway 8.11.2
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 4:32 PM Wakelin, Frank <FWakelin at richmond.ca>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks all – I did get confirmation from TAC that this is not supported –
> at least not with 11.5.  Not sure I’m ready to upgrade everything to 12.x
> at the moment to test but will eat-mark it for later this year.
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Frank Wakelin – Senior Network Analyst
>
> Information Technology | City of Richmond
>
>
>
> Office +16042764190
>
> Mobile +17788394693
>
> fwakelin at richmond.ca
>
>
>
> *From:* Anthony Holloway <avholloway+cisco-voip at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* March 23, 2020 11:05 AM
> *To:* James B <james.buchanan2 at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Wakelin, Frank <FWakelin at richmond.ca>; voyp list, cisco-voip (
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net) <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
> *Subject:* Re: Re: [cisco-voip] CCX phone agent over MRA?
>
>
>
> No, I wouldn't think it has anything to do with finesse.  Again the user
> had direct access to Finesse, no VPN or Internet exposure, just simply the
> user was on the network with the PC while the phone was on a public
> internet circuit.  I'd guess it has worked in previous versions, as it's
> been in the UCCX SRND for a while now, but perhaps there's some issues with
> it.  I just wanted to add a story of success to this otherwise long thread
> of failures.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 12:46 PM James B <james.buchanan2 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Anthony,
>
>
>
> Do you attribute that to the change in web connectivity for Finesse with
> 12.x?
>
>
>
> James
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Anthony Holloway <avholloway+cisco-voip at gmail.com>
> *Sent: *23 March 2020 17:44
> *To: *Wakelin, Frank <FWakelin at richmond.ca>
> *Cc: *voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip at puck.nether.net)
> <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
> *Subject: *Re: [cisco-voip] CCX phone agent over MRA?
>
>
>
> For whatever it's worth, I just upgraded a customer from CSR 11 to CSR
> 12.5 (including UCCX), and testing of an Agent phone registered over MRA
> with the Finesse client directly accessing Finesse server worked.  Clicking
> call control buttons in Finesse was successful in controlling the phone.
> So, while the documentation and field experiences maybe fuzzy, here's one
> empirical case of evidence that it does work on the latest versions.
>
>
>
> Frank, what did TAC respond to you with?
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 1:07 PM Wakelin, Frank <FWakelin at richmond.ca>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the reply.    Finesse is using VPN, but the physical desk phone
> is not – it is connected via MRA.  Standard inbound/outbound calling to the
> phone itself works flawlessly over MRA.  What isn’t working are CCX calls
> to the agent phone; CCX uses CTI to control/monitor the desk phone.
>
>
>
> I did read the CCX/expressway design guide which generally states that CCX
> over MRA is supported, but features that rely on CTI-QBE are not.  The
> documentation isn’t clear as to what CCX features rely on that.  It does
> say CCX is supported however and in my mind the base feature required in
> order to say that “CCX is supported” would be routing calls to agents.
> I’ve asked TAC to confirm what CCX features/functions are
> available/supported and which are not?
>
>
>
> This is not critical as we do have the ability to use Jabber softphones
> via VPN, but we do wish to use 8800 series phones connected via MRA if
> possible.
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Frank Wakelin – Senior Network Analyst
>
> Information Technology | City of Richmond
>
>
>
> Office +16042764190
>
> Mobile +17788394693
>
> fwakelin at richmond.ca
>
>
>
> *From:* Aman Chugh <aman.chugh at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* March 17, 2020 7:45 PM
> *To:* Wakelin, Frank <FWakelin at richmond.ca>
> *Cc:* Erick Bergquist <erickbee at gmail.com>; Lelio Fulgenzi <
> lelio at uoguelph.ca>; voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip at puck.nether.net) <
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] CCX phone agent over MRA?
>
>
>
> It should work if CTI from Finesse is using VPN.
>
>
>
> Are you able to make inbound and outbound call to the MRA phone without
> Finesse.
>
>
>
> For the inbound call Cucm sends an invite over to Expressway C with which
> the mra phone is registered. I would pull CUCM and CTI trace for the
> inbound call.
>
>
>
> Aman
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 3:04 PM Wakelin, Frank <FWakelin at richmond.ca>
> wrote:
>
> Did anyone get this to work?  I'm currently testing with a remote 88xx
> phone registered via MRA.  Finesse is logged in on PC connected over VPN.
> Finesse desktop works fine, but once agent goes ready, the call is never
> presented to the phone; the agent immediately goes from reserved to not
> ready again.
>
> I use Jabber as a softphone on the laptop the call is presented no
> problem.  Any ideas?
>
> ---
> Frank Wakelin - Senior Network Analyst
> Information Technology | City of Richmond
>
> Office +16042764190
> Mobile +17788394693
> fwakelin at richmond.ca
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-voip <cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net> On Behalf Of Erick
> Bergquist
> Sent: January 30, 2020 10:44 AM
> To: Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
> Cc: voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip at puck.nether.net) <
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CCX phone agent over MRA?
>
> Has anyone done a Agent with a hard phone over MRA (8865)?   Finding
> the documents don't really come out and say if it is supported or not.
> See the notes about expressway versions and that is about it.
>
> How about extension mobility login on MRA hard phone for agent use?
>
> Erick
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 1:38 PM Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca> wrote:
> >
> > p.s. I just caught that bug description and your comment. Omg.
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Anthony Holloway <avholloway+cisco-voip at gmail.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 3:30 PM
> > To: Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
> > Cc: voyp list, cisco-voip (cisco-voip at puck.nether.net) <
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
> > Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CCX phone agent over MRA?
> >
> >
> >
> > Are you talking Finesse IP Phone Agent (FIPPA)?
> >
> >
> >
> > If so, the below enhancement defect requesting that these types of
> details be documented (I mean should we even have to request that?) states
> that they tested FIPPA via MRA and it worked.
> >
> >
> >
> > https://bst.cloudapps.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCvi51697
> >
> >
> >
> > Just know that you'll have to add your UCCX server addresses to the HTTP
> Allow list on Expressway-C.
> >
> >
> >
> > And this makes sense to me, since FIPPA is stateless and all needed
> information is included in the URL to perform the actions like Login,
> Logout, Reason Codes, Ready, Not Ready, etc.   The actual ringing of the
> phone and answering etc., are just phone functions, which we know works
> over MRA.  That's kind of the point.  ;)
> >
> >
> >
> > What I am not sure of is whether the FIPPA push to phone works, if
> you're even using that; wherein, upon a new call, UCCX attempts to push
> content to the Agent's phone using the Phone API, but I would think, though
> I cannot confirm, that this would fail, since the phone IP is actually like
> 192.168.1.1 or something, and UCCX wont know to contact Expressway-C about
> it, nor would Expressway-C forward the API call on to the phone, etc.
> >
> >
> >
> > Finesse itself, the web app on port 8445, would not be available over
> MRA, as the document states, and would require a VPN or other networking
> solution to be available to the Agent.  Brian Meade commented on a previous
> conversation to a similar topic that a reverse proxy would help in this
> scenario.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:07 PM Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Can anyone say whether or not a CCX phone agent (or finesse agent in the
> future) is supported over MRA?
> >
> > The MRA guides say:
> >
> > The Expressway does not support some Cisco Unified Contact Center
> Express (Unified CCX) features for contact center agents or other users who
> connect over MRA. Jabber for Mac and Jabber for Windows cannot provide
> deskphone control over MRA, because the Expressway pair does not traverse
> the CTI-QBE protocol. However, if these Jabber applications, or other CTI
> applications, can connect to Unified CM CTIManager (directly or through the
> VPN) they can provide deskphone control of MRA-connected clients.
> >
> > We're looking at a simple phone agent setup, no desktop agent/control,
> etc.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200323/2bbb1fc9/attachment.htm>