<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Agreed on those points. Sticking with 4.1(3) should provide an
easier feature upgrade to 5.0. But from what I hear, the 4.2 features will be
available in 5.1 and that was slated for release in 2007 or something like that.
But you are right....I would use several years as a guide line. 2 to 3
years.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>It comes down to:</FONT></DIV>
<UL>
<LI><FONT size=2>feature availability (SIP, etc)</FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT size=2>upgrade issues (current features not supported in future
version target)</FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT size=2>bleeding edge factor -or- the "dot oh" syndrome</FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT size=2>support issues (how much experience does the TAC
have)</FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT size=2>stability (are there all the patches you want in
there)</FONT></LI></UL>
<DIV><FONT size=2>and I would also add, product availability. It's probably alot
easier to get 4.1(3) install media than it would be 4.2 or 5.0.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>Lelio
Fulgenzi, B.A.<BR>Network Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario
N1G 2W1<BR>(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX
(JNHN)<BR>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<BR>Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than<BR>50 messages in my inbox at
the end of the day: buffer overrun</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=candace_holman@harvard.edu
href="mailto:candace_holman@harvard.edu">Candace Holman</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, April 13, 2006 12:11
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [cisco-voip] Torn apart by
choices - old or new solutions? Simply speaking: CM5.0 or CM4.x</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>To some extent I agree with Lelio and Scott, but it may be
worth it to <BR>you to consider some other points:<BR><BR> *
4.x will not have SIP lines for several years at best<BR> *
5.x has the option for SIP and SCCP<BR> * it could be
difficult to upgrade 4.2 -> 5.x because some of
the<BR> user features in 4.2 are not duplicated
in 5.x for several years<BR> at
best<BR> * 5.x is a RH Linux train, 4.2 is windows so your
considerations for<BR> hardware, organizational
policies or tech philosophies,<BR> engineering
skillset, etc _may_ be different<BR><BR>Candace<BR><BR>> Subject:<BR>>
[cisco-voip] Torn apart by choices - old or new solutions? Simply <BR>>
speaking: CM5.0 or CM4.x<BR>> From:<BR>> Netfortius <<A
href="mailto:netfortius@gmail.com">netfortius@gmail.com</A>><BR>>
Date:<BR>> Thu, 13 Apr 2006 10:33:58 -0500<BR>><BR>> To:<BR>> <A
href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</A><BR>><BR>><BR>>
You may have already gotten used to my last string of questions here, which -
<BR>> I am not hiding it - are part of my attempt to gain info from the
more <BR>> experienced people, on this subject, regarding a project I am
working on for <BR>> deployment of multi-site IPT & VoIP. I have gone
into some details, for some <BR>> questions I had, but now - reading tons
of material every day, I have become <BR>> very worried about the full
blown solution chosen, vs. what is being promised <BR>> just "around the
corner". Here is where I would appreciate any comments, of <BR>> any
nature, thoughts, experience, "what-if" - anything you can share about
<BR>> this subject:<BR>><BR>> Scenario: multi-site deployment of
Cisco CM, with the following objectives in <BR>> mind:<BR>><BR>> 1.
Replacement of existing old telephony solution, Nortel-based, consisting of
<BR>> PBX in each location, with Cisco-based IP-based communication systems
(and <BR>> not only one-to-one replacement of phones, but also steps toward
unified <BR>> communications)<BR>><BR>> 2. Installation of Cisco
solution consisting of:<BR>> a. CM 4.x (advised by Cisco) at the HQ + Unity
integrated with Exchange 2003 <BR>> and a handful of IP phones (major
testers of the technology) and integration <BR>> with existing Nortel PBX
at the HQ (PHASE 1)<BR>> b. IP phones in the remote location (complete
replacement of everything old, <BR>> including PBX) + SRST + standalone
(storage-wise) Unity (PHASE 1)<BR>> c. Unified messaging at the HQ, in the
"pilot" group, to the best of the <BR>> abilities and availability of
products around CM 4.x (e.g. PA, among others, <BR>> as an example of what
I am getting at) (PHASE 1)<BR>> d. Experience from c> ==> full
implementation of unified messaging at the <BR>> first remote ("upgrade" of
the standalone Unity into an Exchange-tied one - <BR>> is this even
possible?!?) (PHASE 2)<BR>> e. remote site used as template fro all other
sites (PHASE 2)<BR>> f. full upgrade at the HQ (PHASE 2), with the
exception of Call Center<BR>> g. Cisco IPCC replacement of the existing
Nortel Call Center, after the <BR>> entire VoIP and IPT has proven reliable
to sustain a Customer Service (PHASE <BR>> 3)<BR>><BR>> 3. The
unified communications (including messaging) will eventually adddress <BR>>
various business needs, primarily focused on mobility and real-time <BR>>
communications and sharing<BR>><BR>> Having said all of the above, here
are the issues I am struggling with:<BR>><BR>> - I have (and nobody in
my network geeks group) no real experience with Cisco <BR>>
VoIP/IPT;<BR>> - the suggested solution, from Cisco, revolves around a CM
4.2 and, gradually, <BR>> as explained above, updates to the point of full
unified messaging - still <BR>> 4.2-based<BR>> - I am getting
conflicting messages from our Cisco group - they advise us to <BR>> do the
install with CM 4.2 (which would end up as a cluster of multiple <BR>>
servers, at the HQ), not CM 5.0, but:<BR>> - I am reading and reading, and
it appears to me that some features associated <BR>> with CM 4.2 are dying
(e.g. PA), while CM 5.0 seems to open the door for much <BR>> more, but not
everything backward compatible with 4.x<BR>> - tons of features are being
advertised as related to CM 5.0, only, but are <BR>> not ready yet, and are
to be released this year (majority in second quarter)<BR>><BR>> Bottom
line - I am struggling with one major question (with no easy answer - <BR>>
thus appreciating any comments this list may have): should I move ahead as
<BR>> started, with the one site + pilot HQ, on CM 4.2 (PHASE 1), then go
over all <BR>> phases, then analyze what would need to be upgraded to a 5.0
environment, if <BR>> certain additional features would become available
and needed, and not <BR>> backward compatible<BR>> OR<BR>> should I
just put a stop to the CM 4.x analysis and planning, and redo <BR>>
everything (with the delay caused by various products availability) around CM
<BR>> 5.0?<BR>><BR>> As I said - any $0.02-$64K comments will be
really appreciated. I will try to <BR>> consolidate this type of info, in
something useful, if enough data warrants <BR>> it.<BR>><BR>>
Thanks,<BR>> Stefan<BR>><BR>>
<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>cisco-voip mailing
list<BR><A
href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</A><BR><A
href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip</A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>