<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Pretty good list. But it assumes that you don’t already have all of those servers for Exchange email, which most of the people contemplating Exchange UM would
have.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">-Nate<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Grant Teague [mailto:grant.teague@gmail.com]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, February 24, 2012 12:16 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> bill@hitechconnection.net<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Jason Aarons (AM); Nate VanMaren; Gr; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Bill<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Here is 10 reason why Unity CxN over Exchange 2010.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Separate Message Store for Discovery and Compliance Purposes
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">a.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Exchange UM stores email and voicemail on the same server
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">b.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Unity Connection stores voice messages separately from the email store overcoming legal discoverability concerns
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Enterprise Scalability
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">a.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Exchange UM experiences issues at as low as 40 ports in use per server (MCS 7845 equivalent)
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">b.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Unity Connection 8.6 scales to 250 ports per server (MCS 7845 equivalent)
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Virtualization Support
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">a.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Microsoft announced support for virtualization in May 2011. Requires 4 physical processor cores at all times.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">b.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Unity Connection 8.6 supports virtualization on Cisco UCS, HP, and IBM platforms
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Environmental Dependencies
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">a.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Exchange UM depends on Active Directory and 3 Exchange server roles to operate
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">b.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Unity Connection offers optional integrations with Active Directory and Microsoft Exchange (TTS, calendaring, import contacts)
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">High Availability
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">a.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Microsoft requires 4x the number of servers to achieve an equivalent SLA as Unity Connection (2 GC’s, 2 Mailbox servers, 2 UM servers, 2 Hub Transport servers)
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">b.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Unity Connection provides 2-server Active/Active clustering solutions for High Availability
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Architecture</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">a.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Exchange UM supports centralized messaging only, no SRSV-like functionality. There’s no support of networking with 3<sup>rd</sup>-party voicemail systems</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">b.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Unity Connection 8.6 supports both centralized and distributed messaging, SRST, SRSV, and supports networking with other Cisco voicemail systems and 3<sup>rd</sup>-party voicemail systems
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Voicemail Interoperability
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">a.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Microsoft Exchange UM does not support networking with 3<sup>rd</sup>-party voicemail systems.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">b.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Cisco Unity Connection supports VPIM networking
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Client Support
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">a.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Exchange UM supports Outlook, OWA, OVA, ASR, Windows Mobile, and other mobile clients via mp3
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">b.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Unity Connection supports Outlook, OWA, Lotus Notes, numerous other IMAP clients. Unity Inbox, Cisco Jabber, Visual Voicemail, IBM Lotus Sametime, CUPC, mobile clients via CUMC/CUMA, RSS Feeds
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Secure Messaging
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">a.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Exchange UM requires Rights Management Service (RMS) for private messages (additional server, license)
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">b.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Natively supports secure, private messaging and optionally also securely deletes messages from hard drive
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Calendaring
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">a.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Exchange UM supports calendaring in Exchange 2007 and 2010
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">b.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Unity Connection supports calendaring in Exchange 2003, 2007, and 2010
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">hope this helps.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">regards<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Grant<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 1:29 PM, <a href="mailto:bill@hitechconnection.net">
bill@hitechconnection.net</a> <<a href="mailto:bill@hitechconnection.net">bill@hitechconnection.net</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p>So I still don’t see a compelling reason to tell a customer not to go with Exchange 2010 and dump Unity / Unity Connection if they already own the E-CAL for exchange 2010 as part of their EA agreement with Microsoft? To tell them they have more nobs to turn
is not going to go very far. I am looking for real technical limitations of Exchange 2010 Vs. Unity Connection.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="margin-top:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Courier New""><br>
On February 23, 2012 at 5:03 PM Nate VanMaren <<a href="mailto:VanMarenNP@ldschurch.org" target="_blank">VanMarenNP@ldschurch.org</a>> wrote:
<br>
<br>
> It’s not very bad at all. But Unity Connection 8.5+ is a much more full featured voicemail system, and you get nice single inbox. There are a lot more knobs in Connection to control how stuff works.
<br>
> <br>
> Just depends on the needs. <br>
> <br>
> From: <a href="mailto:bill@hitechconnection.net" target="_blank">bill@hitechconnection.net</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:bill@hitechconnection.net" target="_blank">bill@hitechconnection.net</a>]
<br>
> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 2:14 PM <br>
> To: Jason Aarons (AM); Nate VanMaren; Gr <br>
> Cc: <a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a>
<br>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail
<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> So beside these two things why is the Exchange 2010 UM so bad? I am having a hard time from a competitive standpoint convincing someone NOT to dump unity / unity connection and move directly to Exchange 2010 UM when 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 <<a href="mailto:VanMarenNP@ldschurch.org" target="_blank">VanMarenNP@ldschurch.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:VanMarenNP@ldschurch.org" target="_blank">VanMarenNP@ldschurch.org</a>>> wrote:
<br>
> <br>
> > Yea there isn’t really “ports” that you have to worry about on the SIP integrations, just max number of calls.
<br>
> > <br>
> > You will still need a VM pilot and profile, and then a route pattern that points to the sip trunk that is pointed at exchange UM.
<br>
> > <br>
> > <a href="http://www.agileit.com/Blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=820" target="_blank">
http://www.agileit.com/Blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=820</a> <br>
> > <br>
> > <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?id=13591" target="_blank">
http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?id=13591</a> <br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > From: Gr [mailto:<a href="mailto:grccie@gmail.com" target="_blank">grccie@gmail.com</a>]<mailto:[mailto:<a href="mailto:grccie@gmail.com" target="_blank">grccie@gmail.com</a>]>
<br>
> > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 3:00 PM <br>
> > To: Jason Aarons (AM); Nate VanMaren <br>
> > Cc: <a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a>>
<br>
> > Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for 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 it to sip trunk and then in exchange 2010 we create voice mail pilot and 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)" <<a href="mailto:jason.aarons@dimensiondata.com" target="_blank">jason.aarons@dimensiondata.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:jason.aarons@dimensiondata.com" target="_blank">jason.aarons@dimensiondata.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:jason.aarons@dimensiondata.com" target="_blank">jason.aarons@dimensiondata.com</a>%<a href="mailto:3cmailto%3Ajason.aarons@dimensiondata.com" target="_blank">3cmailto:jason.aarons@dimensiondata.com</a>>>>
wrote: <br>
> > I think I understand that Exchange 2010 has a crappy sip stack. Good info. <lol>
<br>
> > <br>
> > From: <a href="mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net</a>%<a href="mailto:3cmailto%3Acisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">3cmailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net</a>>>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net</a>]<mailto:[mailto:<a href="mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net</a>]><mailto:[mailto:<a href="mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net</a>]>
On Behalf Of Nate VanMaren <br>
> > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 11:03 AM <br>
> > To: gr11; <a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a>%<a href="mailto:3cmailto%3Acisco-voip@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">3cmailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a>>>
<br>
> > Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for 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 the SIP trunk because it won’t deal with RTP source/destination changes in 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 caller name on the voicemail on call transferred to voicemail, you have to run the transfer through an app that waits for the transferee to complete the transfer to send the call to exchange.
<br>
> > <br>
> > Voicemail preview takes a lot of hardware. I think our boxes are quad core with 8/16gb of ram and 4-5 calls will max out the CPU.
<br>
> > <br>
> > -Nate <br>
> > <br>
> > From: <a href="mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net</a>%<a href="mailto:3cmailto%3Acisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">3cmailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net</a>>>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net</a>]<mailto:[mailto:<a href="mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net</a>]><mailto:[mailto:<a href="mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net</a>]>
On Behalf Of gr11 <br>
> > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:17 PM <br>
> > To: <a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a>%<a href="mailto:3cmailto%3Acisco-voip@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">3cmailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a>>>
<br>
> > Subject: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail <br>
> > <br>
> > Hi List, <br>
> > <br>
> > I am providing the CUCM8.5 integration with exchange 2010 for a customer for their voice mail needs. The customer has an old unity server that will be decommissioned and voice mail functionality will be provided by exchange 2010 UM.
<br>
> > <br>
> > Anyone who has done this before, any pitfalls or things to be aware of? We are going to use a third party gateway for SIP Trunk termination 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 recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact
the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. <br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > itevomcid <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
keep living the dream<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>