<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"><html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"/>
</head>
<body>
<p style="margin: 0px;">
<span>
<span></span>
</span>
</p>
<p style="margin: 0px; "></p>
<p>Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.</p>
<p>
<span> </span>
</p>
<div style="margin: 5px 0px; font-family: monospace;">
<br/>
On February 24, 2012 at 2:15 PM Grant Teague <grant.teague@gmail.com> wrote:
<br/>
<br/>
> Hi Bill
<br/>
>
<br/>
> Here is 10 reason why Unity CxN over Exchange 2010.
<br/>
>
<br/>
>
<br/>
> Separate Message Store for Discovery and Compliance Purposes
<br/>
>
<br/>
> a. Exchange UM stores email and voicemail on the same server
<br/>
>
<br/>
> b. Unity Connection stores voice messages separately from the email
<br/>
> store overcoming legal discoverability concerns
<br/>
>
<br/>
> Enterprise Scalability
<br/>
>
<br/>
> a. Exchange UM experiences issues at as low as 40 ports in use per
<br/>
> server (MCS 7845 equivalent)
<br/>
>
<br/>
> b. Unity Connection 8.6 scales to 250 ports per server (MCS 7845
<br/>
> equivalent)
<br/>
>
<br/>
> Virtualization Support
<br/>
>
<br/>
> a. Microsoft announced support for virtualization in May 2011. Requires
<br/>
> 4 physical processor cores at all times.
<br/>
>
<br/>
> b. Unity Connection 8.6 supports virtualization on Cisco UCS, HP, and
<br/>
> IBM platforms
<br/>
>
<br/>
> Environmental Dependencies
<br/>
>
<br/>
> a. Exchange UM depends on Active Directory and 3 Exchange server
<br/>
> roles to operate
<br/>
>
<br/>
> b. Unity Connection offers optional integrations with Active Directory
<br/>
> and Microsoft Exchange (TTS, calendaring, import contacts)
<br/>
>
<br/>
> High Availability
<br/>
>
<br/>
> a. Microsoft requires 4x the number of servers to achieve an
<br/>
> equivalent SLA as Unity Connection (2 GC’s, 2 Mailbox servers, 2 UM
<br/>
> servers, 2 Hub Transport servers)
<br/>
>
<br/>
> b. Unity Connection provides 2-server Active/Active clustering
<br/>
> solutions for High Availability
<br/>
>
<br/>
> Architecture
<br/>
>
<br/>
> a. Exchange UM supports centralized messaging only, no SRSV-like
<br/>
> functionality. There’s no support of networking with 3rd-party voicemail
<br/>
> systems
<br/>
>
<br/>
> b. Unity Connection 8.6 supports both centralized and distributed
<br/>
> messaging, SRST, SRSV, and supports networking with other Cisco voicemail
<br/>
> systems and 3rd-party voicemail systems
<br/>
>
<br/>
> Voicemail Interoperability
<br/>
>
<br/>
> a. Microsoft Exchange UM does not support networking with 3rd-party
<br/>
> voicemail systems.
<br/>
>
<br/>
> b. Cisco Unity Connection supports VPIM networking
<br/>
>
<br/>
> Client Support
<br/>
>
<br/>
> a. Exchange UM supports Outlook, OWA, OVA, ASR, Windows Mobile, and
<br/>
> other mobile clients via mp3
<br/>
>
<br/>
> b. Unity Connection supports Outlook, OWA, Lotus Notes, numerous other
<br/>
> IMAP clients. Unity Inbox, Cisco Jabber, Visual Voicemail, IBM Lotus
<br/>
> Sametime, CUPC, mobile clients via CUMC/CUMA, RSS Feeds
<br/>
>
<br/>
> Secure Messaging
<br/>
>
<br/>
> a. Exchange UM requires Rights Management Service (RMS) for private
<br/>
> messages (additional server, license)
<br/>
>
<br/>
> b. Natively supports secure, private messaging and optionally also
<br/>
> securely deletes messages from hard drive
<br/>
>
<br/>
> Calendaring
<br/>
>
<br/>
> a. Exchange UM supports calendaring in Exchange 2007 and 2010
<br/>
>
<br/>
> b. Unity Connection supports calendaring in Exchange 2003, 2007, and
<br/>
> 2010
<br/>
>
<br/>
> hope this helps.
<br/>
>
<br/>
> regards
<br/>
>
<br/>
> Grant
<br/>
>
<br/>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 1:29 PM, bill@hitechconnection.net <
<br/>
> bill@hitechconnection.net> wrote:
<br/>
>
<br/>
> > **
<br/>
> >
<br/>
> > So I still don’t see a compelling reason to tell a customer not to go with
<br/>
> > Exchange 2010 and dump Unity / Unity Connection if they already own the
<br/>
> > E-CAL for exchange 2010 as part of their EA agreement with Microsoft? To
<br/>
> > tell them they have more nobs to turn is not going to go very far. I am
<br/>
> > looking for real technical limitations of Exchange 2010 Vs. Unity
<br/>
> > Connection.
<br/>
> >
<br/>
> >
<br/>
> >
<br/>
> > On February 23, 2012 at 5:03 PM Nate VanMaren <VanMarenNP@ldschurch.org>
<br/>
> > wrote:
<br/>
> >
<br/>
> > > It’s not very bad at all. But Unity Connection 8.5+ is a much more full
<br/>
> > featured voicemail system, and you get nice single inbox. There are a lot
<br/>
> > more knobs in Connection to control how stuff works.
<br/>
> > >
<br/>
> > > Just depends on the needs.
<br/>
> > >
<br/>
> > > From: bill@hitechconnection.net [mailto:bill@hitechconnection.net]
<br/>
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 2:14 PM
<br/>
> > > To: Jason Aarons (AM); Nate VanMaren; Gr
<br/>
> > > Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
<br/>
> > > Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for
<br/>
> > Voice mail
<br/>
> > >
<br/>
> > >
<br/>
> > >
<br/>
> > >
<br/>
> > > So beside these two things why is the Exchange 2010 UM so bad? I am
<br/>
> > having a hard time from a competitive standpoint convincing someone NOT to
<br/>
> > dump unity / unity connection and move directly to Exchange 2010 UM when
<br/>
> > they have the E-CAL already as part of their enterprise agreement.
<br/>
> > >
<br/>
> > >
<br/>
> > >
<br/>
> > > On February 17, 2012 at 5:02 PM Nate VanMaren <VanMarenNP@ldschurch.org
<br/>
> > <mailto:VanMarenNP@ldschurch.org>> wrote:
<br/>
> > >
<br/>
> > > > Yea there isn’t really “ports” that you have to worry about on the SIP
<br/>
> > integrations, just max number of calls.
<br/>
> > > >
<br/>
> > > > You will still need a VM pilot and profile, and then a route pattern
<br/>
> > that points to the sip trunk that is pointed at exchange UM.
<br/>
> > > >
<br/>
> > > > http://www.agileit.com/Blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=820
<br/>
> > > >
<br/>
> > > > http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?id=13591
<br/>
> > > >
<br/>
> > > >
<br/>
> > > > From: Gr [mailto:grccie@gmail.com]<mailto:[mailto:grccie@gmail.com]>
<br/>
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 3:00 PM
<br/>
> > > > To: Jason Aarons (AM); Nate VanMaren
<br/>
> > > > Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
<br/>
> > > > Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for
<br/>
> > Voice mail
<br/>
> > > >
<br/>
> > > > Thanks Nate, Jason! Valuable information, I will keep this in mind.
<br/>
> > > >
<br/>
> > > > Another question is we just create voice mail pilot in cucm and route
<br/>
> > it to sip trunk and then in exchange 2010 we create voice mail pilot and
<br/>
> > the actual voice mail ports?
<br/>
> > > >
<br/>
> > > > Thanks,
<br/>
> > > > GR
<br/>
> > > >
<br/>
> > > >
<br/>
> > > > Sent from my iPhone
<br/>
> > > >
<br/>
> > > > On 18/02/2012, at 4:35 AM, "Jason Aarons (AM)" <
<br/>
> > jason.aarons@dimensiondata.com<mailto:jason.aarons@dimensiondata.com
<br/>
> > <mailto:jason.aarons@dimensiondata.com%
<br/>
> > 3cmailto:jason.aarons@dimensiondata.com>>> wrote:
<br/>
> > > > I think I understand that Exchange 2010 has a crappy sip stack. Good
<br/>
> > info. <lol>
<br/>
> > > >
<br/>
> > > > From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net<mailto:
<br/>
> > cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net<mailto:
<br/>
> > cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net%
<br/>
> > 3cmailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net>> [mailto:
<br/>
> > cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net]<mailto:[mailto:
<br/>
> > cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net]><mailto:[mailto:
<br/>
> > cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net]> On Behalf Of Nate VanMaren
<br/>
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 11:03 AM
<br/>
> > > > To: gr11; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
<br/>
> > <mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net%3cmailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
<br/>
> > > > Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for
<br/>
> > Voice mail
<br/>
> > > >
<br/>
> > > >
<br/>
> > > > Two things off the top of my head.
<br/>
> > > >
<br/>
> > > >
<br/>
> > > > 1. Exchange has a crappy sip stack. So you have to use a MTP on
<br/>
> > the SIP trunk because it won’t deal with RTP source/destination changes in
<br/>
> > a session. Like when someone does a supervised transfer to voicemail.
<br/>
> > > >
<br/>
> > > > 2. Exchange has a crappy sip stack. So if you want correct
<br/>
> > caller name on the voicemail on call transferred to voicemail, you have to
<br/>
> > run the transfer through an app that waits for the transferee to complete
<br/>
> > the transfer to send the call to exchange.
<br/>
> > > >
<br/>
> > > > Voicemail preview takes a lot of hardware. I think our boxes are quad
<br/>
> > core with 8/16gb of ram and 4-5 calls will max out the CPU.
<br/>
> > > >
<br/>
> > > > -Nate
<br/>
> > > >
<br/>
> > > > From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net<mailto:
<br/>
> > cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net<mailto:
<br/>
> > cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net%
<br/>
> > 3cmailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net>> [mailto:
<br/>
> > cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net]<mailto:[mailto:
<br/>
> > cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net]><mailto:[mailto:
<br/>
> > cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net]> On Behalf Of gr11
<br/>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:17 PM
<br/>
> > > > To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
<br/>
> > <mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net%3cmailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
<br/>
> > > > Subject: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for
<br/>
> > Voice mail
<br/>
> > > >
<br/>
> > > > Hi List,
<br/>
> > > >
<br/>
> > > > I am providing the CUCM8.5 integration with exchange 2010 for a
<br/>
> > customer for their voice mail needs. The customer has an old unity server
<br/>
> > that will be decommissioned and voice mail functionality will be provided
<br/>
> > by exchange 2010 UM.
<br/>
> > > >
<br/>
> > > > Anyone who has done this before, any pitfalls or things to be aware
<br/>
> > of? We are going to use a third party gateway for SIP Trunk termination
<br/>
> > to/from CUCM and exchange
<br/>
> > > >
<br/>
> > > > Thanks,
<br/>
> > > > GR
<br/>
> > > >
<br/>
> > > >
<br/>
> > > > NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
<br/>
> > recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any
<br/>
> > unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
<br/>
> > are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email
<br/>
> > and destroy all copies of the original message.
<br/>
> > > >
<br/>
> > > >
<br/>
> > > >
<br/>
> > > > itevomcid
<br/>
> >
<br/>
> > _______________________________________________
<br/>
> > cisco-voip mailing list
<br/>
> > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
<br/>
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
<br/>
> >
<br/>
> >
<br/>
>
<br/>
>
<br/>
> --
<br/>
> keep living the dream
</div>
</body>
</html>