<!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>To follow up, I was told that this is to protect the product
from their competitors and that there was an internal document that has this
information and that it would be available. I asked and have been ignored.
:(</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </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=lelio@uoguelph.ca href="mailto:lelio@uoguelph.ca">Lelio Fulgenzi</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=netfortius@gmail.com
href="mailto:netfortius@gmail.com">netfortius@gmail.com</A> ; <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 newsolutions?Simplyspeaking: CM5.0 or CM4.x</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Unfortunately Cisco does not do a good job at posting, in a
very simple and easy to read list (like the compatibility matrix) a list of
features available in each version. You have to read the documentation/release
notes to see the 'what's new' and even then, it's not complete.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Your SE team should be able to provide you with a feature
roadmap which tells you which version of 4.1 that 5.0 is feature equal to and
which new features 5.0 has over that 4.1 version. In addition, they should be
able to tell you what features 4.2 has over 4.1(x). There weren't many, but a
few were nice, like logging out of hunt groups. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Seeing that both 5.0 and 4.2 are on new product hold and
there likely isn't a lot of use out there (including this list which we all
use for support), I'd almost hazard to say stick with 4.1(3)sr3a as a new
install. An upgrade to 4.2 if you need the new features won't be as bad as
upgrading from 4.1 to 5.0 and you can probably do that with a bit of testing
and a weekend. Remember, that 4.1(3)sr3a has a lot of bug fixes. If they
started creating 4.2 a while back, what was their base? Are the fixes that are
available in sr3a applied to 4.2? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></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=netfortius@gmail.com
href="mailto:netfortius@gmail.com">Netfortius</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 12:07
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [cisco-voip] Torn apart by
choices - old or new solutions?Simplyspeaking: CM5.0 or CM4.x</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Lelio,<BR><BR>As far as a .0 version is concerned - we could
not agree more! That stands <BR>true for any product, be it Cisco, M$, or
else. I would avoid this by all <BR>means, if not having a major impact on
my plans, for the future. Even some <BR>Cisco people advise against (for
now) - but I could address this in a delay <BR>in the project, if the other
part (features-based-on) justifies such.<BR><BR>As far as reachness of
features (which is the critical aspect) - you seem to <BR>point out (and
most likely know) something that did not come out of my [very <BR>limited in
time] research, so far, in the line of products, from Cisco, and <BR>that is
feature set associated with one or the other of the two major <BR>solutions.
Here are some links I have been using, as starting point in my
<BR>research:<BR><BR><A
href="http://www.cisco.com/application/pdf/en/us/guest/products/ps556/c1650/cdccont_0900aecd80410ad6.pdf">http://www.cisco.com/application/pdf/en/us/guest/products/ps556/c1650/cdccont_0900aecd80410ad6.pdf</A><BR><BR><A
href="http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/ps6884/products_qanda_item0900aecd80422cb2.shtml">http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/ps6884/products_qanda_item0900aecd80422cb2.shtml</A><BR><BR><A
href="http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/ps6567/products_qanda_item0900aecd80410afb.shtml">http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/ps6567/products_qanda_item0900aecd80410afb.shtml</A><BR><BR><A
href="http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/ps6567/products_qanda_item0900aecd80422cb2.shtml">http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/ps6567/products_qanda_item0900aecd80422cb2.shtml</A><BR><BR>On
all of these, there are a lot of references to CM 5.0, and associated
<BR>features. Is there such a thing just for CM 4.2? Or - even better yet -
is <BR>there a feature-by-feature comparison table for the two versions of
CM, and <BR>their associated applications for unified communications,
mobility, <BR>convergence, etc.?<BR><BR>Thank you,<BR>Stefan<BR><BR>On
Thursday 13 April 2006 10:37, Lelio Fulgenzi wrote:<BR>> Personally
speaking, I'd go with 4.2. 4.x is a more mature product than 5.0<BR>> and
I'd never install a "dot oh" of anything. 4.2 has a very large
feature<BR>> set (more than 5.0) so you have to weigh what you would be
losing if you<BR>> don't go with 5.0. SIP is a big one for sure.
Appliance model is another.<BR>> There may be others. The biggest thing
you want to look out for when<BR>> migrating is not so much new features
but existing feature replacement and<BR>> of course stability. I think
you would get that with 4.2, not sure about<BR>> 5.0. Look at upgrading
in two years to 5.1 or 5.2 when you're not the<BR>> guinea
pig.<BR>><BR>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------<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<BR>>
----- Original Message -----<BR>> From:
Netfortius<BR>> To: <A
href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</A><BR>>
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 11:33 AM<BR>> Subject:
[cisco-voip] Torn apart by choices - old or new solutions?<BR>>
Simplyspeaking: CM5.0 or CM4.x<BR>><BR>><BR>> You may
have already gotten used to my last string of questions here,<BR>> which
- I am not hiding it - are part of my attempt to gain info from the<BR>>
more experienced people, on this subject, regarding a project I am
working<BR>> on for deployment of multi-site IPT & VoIP. I have gone
into some details,<BR>> for some questions I had, but now - reading tons
of material every day, I<BR>> have become very worried about the full
blown solution chosen, vs. what is<BR>> being promised just "around the
corner". Here is where I would appreciate<BR>> any comments, of any
nature, thoughts, experience, "what-if" - anything you<BR>> can share
about this subject:<BR>><BR>> Scenario: multi-site
deployment of Cisco CM, with the following<BR>> objectives in
mind:<BR>><BR>> 1. Replacement of existing old telephony
solution, Nortel-based,<BR>> consisting of PBX in each location, with
Cisco-based IP-based communication<BR>> systems (and not only one-to-one
replacement of phones, but also steps<BR>> toward unified
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<BR>> 2003 and a handful of IP
phones (major testers of the technology) and<BR>> integration with
existing Nortel PBX at the HQ (PHASE 1)<BR>> b. IP phones in
the remote location (complete replacement of everything<BR>> old,
including PBX) + SRST + standalone (storage-wise) Unity (PHASE 1) c.<BR>>
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<BR>> others, 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<BR>> (PHASE 3)<BR>><BR>> 3. The
unified communications (including messaging) will eventually<BR>>
adddress various business needs, primarily focused on mobility and<BR>>
real-time 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<BR>> Cisco VoIP/IPT;<BR>> -
the suggested solution, from Cisco, revolves around a CM 4.2 and,<BR>>
gradually, as explained above, updates to the point of full unified<BR>>
messaging - still 4.2-based<BR>> - I am getting conflicting
messages from our Cisco group - they advise us<BR>> to 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<BR>> associated with CM 4.2 are
dying (e.g. PA), while CM 5.0 seems to open the<BR>> door for much more,
but not everything backward compatible with 4.x<BR>> - tons
of features are being advertised as related to CM 5.0, only, but<BR>> are
not ready yet, and are to be released this year (majority in second<BR>>
quarter)<BR>><BR>> Bottom line - I am struggling with one
major question (with no easy<BR>> answer - thus appreciating any comments
this list may have): should I move<BR>> ahead as started, with the one
site + pilot HQ, on CM 4.2 (PHASE 1), then<BR>> go over all phases, then
analyze what would need to be upgraded to a 5.0<BR>> environment, if
certain additional features would become available and<BR>> needed, and
not 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)<BR>> around CM 5.0?<BR>><BR>> As
I said - any $0.02-$64K comments will be really appreciated. I will<BR>>
try to consolidate this type of info, in something useful, if enough
data<BR>> warrants it.<BR>><BR>>
Thanks,<BR>> Stefan<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>_______________________________________________<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>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>cisco-voip mailing
list<BR>cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<BR>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>