I beleive that this is from what used to be called golden bridge.... whatever its called now from the VTG (UC Test?? don't recall). Gives you a good starting point but not a "compatibily guide" by any means. <br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 8:43 PM, Bill Riley <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bill@hitechconnection.net">bill@hitechconnection.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">Or Cisco just wants you to upgrade to make sure you have smartnet on all of<br>routers. :)<br>I only configure gateways as H.323 and never have problems CUCM upgrades. I<br>
have had issues with SRST and I would test that functionality but it is<br>usually dependant on new phones not new CUCM versions.<br>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="h5"><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: <a href="mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net">cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net</a><br>[mailto:<a href="mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net">cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net</a>] On Behalf Of Nick Matthews<br>
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 6:04 PM<br>To: Matthew Linsemier<br>Cc: <a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a><br>Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] IOS / CM<br><br>Generally the correlation is pretty loose. MGCP sometimes is a little<br>
more version dependent since the control is tigher. H.323 is by the<br>the loosest, and a slightly higher correlation with SIP because<br>features are added/changed so quickly.<br><br>I would say the IOS versions really become more important when you<br>
start running SCCP on the router for media resources (conferencing,<br>MTP, transcoding) or when you do SCCP controlled FXS ports (VG224).<br><br>If you're running 12.4(20)T or later I personally wouldn't upgrade any<br>
of the routers unless I had trouble.<br><br>-nick<br><br>On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Matthew Linsemier<br><<a href="mailto:mlinsemier@apassurance.com">mlinsemier@apassurance.com</a>> wrote:<br>> I’m curious about this document as it only lists the IOS version required<br>
> for CME / SRST. We still are UCM 7.1(5a) with IOS 12.4(24)T3 and aren’t<br>> having any issues. However, we haven’t done a whole lot of SRST<br>testing...<br>> Maybe I should do more.<br>><br>> Matt<br>
><br>><br>> On 7/19/10 1:17 PM, "Scott Voll" <<a href="mailto:svoll.voip@gmail.com">svoll.voip@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>><br>> So we are moving from CM 4.2 to 7.1.5.<br>><br>> according to<br>
><br>this: <a href="http://www.cisco.com/en/US/customer/docs/voice_ip_comm/uc_system/unified/communications/system/versions/IPTMtrix.html#wp1016708" target="_blank">http://www.cisco.com/en/US/customer/docs/voice_ip_comm/uc_system/unifi<br>
ed/communications/system/versions/IPTMtrix.html#wp1016708</a><br>> we need all our Router up to 15.0.1M for CM 7.1.3<br>><br>> my questions:<br>><br>> 1. What about 7.1.5?<br>> 2. Why do you need to upgrade to a 15.0 IOS? Could 12.4T work?<br>
> 3. If we upgrade IOS to 15.0 will the Routers (VGWs) still work on CM<br>4.2?<br>><br>> If you have any info on the relationship between IOS and CM I would like<br>to<br>> understand it more completely. I have both H323 and MGCP VGW's. Since<br>
some<br>> of them are H323 does the IOS requirements go out the window?<br>><br>> Thanks<br>><br>> Scott<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" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip</a><br>
><br>> ________________________________<br>><br>> CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT<br>> This communication and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be<br>protected<br>> by one or more legal privileges. It is intended solely for the use of the<br>
> addressee identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, any<br>use,<br>> disclosure, copying or distribution of this communication is UNAUTHORIZED.<br>> Neither this information block, the typed name of the sender, nor anything<br>
> else in this message is intended to constitute an electronic signature<br>> unless a specific statement to the contrary is included in this message.<br>If<br>> you have received this communication in error, please immediately contact<br>
me<br>> and delete this communication from your computer. Thank you.<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" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip</a><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" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip</a><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" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>