CUCM 8.6 & integration StarterPack VCS Expresway

Similar Questions

• CUCM (8.6 - 9) or VCS

  in the new videoconferencing infrastructure, which is the best option, only CUCM or VCS with CUCM?

  What is the future of VCS, if new versions of ex60... ex90 c20 sx20... come with direct integration with CUCM?

  Thank you all

  My Adviser for any installation of greenfield is to use CUCM; However, it does not entirely replace VCS, and it should in the near future. Here are some examples:

  • VCS control is always the product of call control recommended for video customers other than Cisco (Polycom, Sony, generic H.323, etc.). This is also the case for other types of interoperability (for example IPv4 to IPv6).
  • VCS control is always necessary for the travesal firewall Ascend/H.460 to work with VCS Expressway. Any call to the Internet would be CUCM--> VCS - C--> VCS - E--> Internet.
  • VCS Expressway is always required for any client capable non-AnyConnect located on internet to register; CUCM is not intended to be directly Internet facing.

  CUCM is Cisco Lighthouse call control platform and this will be the design choice by default unless one arrises specific requirement that excludes it. Perhaps, if the client doesn't have a Cisco UC today and don't ever be (which seems unlikely that frankly), you may be able to justify a VCS approach only. The days of a compartmentalized video compatible infrastructure seem well numbered.

  Please remember useful frequency responses and identify useful or correct answers.

• SX 20 integration with VCS

  Hello

  Is it possible to integrate 20 SX with VCS.

  Because our customer want to integrate with their MS Lync TP, so found that VCS can do this job. Then please suggest...

  Here also to point out that we are planing to use the public IP address for SX 20 to receive incoming calls from the public IP address, as it will be integrated with ISDN gateway.

  Details of the product for this solution:

  VCS

  SX 20

  TP ISDN Gateway

  Thanks in advance...

  Kind regards

  Daniele

  Yes, its possible, check this.

• Integration of VCS with Lync (impossible to decode the SDP)

  Hello

  This is my first post here, and I would like to know your opinion on the issue below:

  Scenario: VCS running 7.1 with B2BUA and SIP using TLS connection. Microsoft Lync 2010 (a VET), no user FindMe, just static road.

  SIP TLS connection is active on both sides. Managed to call from customer end points Lync, Lync unfortunally endpoints customers I get a response "400 Unable to decode SDP." The static route is configured to send calls to port 5061 on VCS.

  Any ideas?

  Thank you.

  Kind regards.

  Didler,

  the static route to Lync to VCS should not point to port 5061 when you use B2BUA, but rather the B2BUA listening port incoming connections from OCS/Lync, which is default 65072.

  This is described in detail on pages 67 and 68 of the OCS/Lync for X7.1 deployment guide.

  Hope this helps,

  Andreas

• Integration of CUCM, CTS and TMS

  We currently have a 8.6/CTS-Man/CTMS CUCM environment for our telepresence system.  All systems are CTS only.  Currently, connect us to a Tandberg system via Server CUBE/VCS/telepresence.

  We are looking at the possibility of integrating the two systems together.  This would involve decommissioning our CTS-man and using their existing planning TMS.  Networks would be open to each other so that they didn't cross highway of CUBE/VCS.

  Can someone tell me please to some documents on the integration of the TMS with our CUCM for planning?

  Furthermore, is it possible to have a single MSDS to perform the planning on the two CUCM registered CTS and saved VCS Tandberg endpoints end points, as well as to perform planning tasks for Community trade marks and MSE8000/telepresence Server?

  Thank you

  Hi Nick

  It is a very good question, and the bellows are drawn from the responses on the features that each product can provide you (CTS - Man and TMS) however as we know the TP Cisco world is changing and moving quickly if the bellows has been updated / changed and can someone comment on this topic will be great for us

  Meetings 1-booking

  TMS:

  -adhoc and meetings,

  -3rd-party endpoints reservation.

  -Ms Exchange, Domino, and API

  CTS - Man:

  -mainly used for endpoints STC booking

  -You can book and include cisco webex

  -Ms Exchange, domino and API

  2 features

  TMS:

  -End suppliers Multi points

  -Telephone directories

  -planning of conf

  -management endpoints (monitoring, Reporting, strong alerts... etc)

  -commissioning

  -integration with 3rd party such as Ms exchange

  -"There is no button to push" for the endpoints of CTS (you can add CTS alis for TMS rooms and book it or add the E164 of the external endpoint CTS as a participant and not these means are a button to push the meeting!

  CTS-MAN

  -integration of calendar

  -Midware between CTS, CUCM system and society of calendaring system

  -provide 'a button to push' scheduled meetings

  -provide interoperability simplified such planning via Cisco MXE

  -Live English option and CTMS geographical selection

  for each of them can provide you with options and features and its depends on the needs of your business, you could keep both or just go with one, if you have endpoints of VCS I would say for sure to the TMS

  HTH

  Marwan

• VCS CUCM BFCP and area profile

  Hello

  Referring to the VCS Release Notes:

  If you configure a trunk to CUCM 8.6, you must create a custom SIP section which does not remove the lines BFCP to CUCM. If you choose CUCM as profile in the VCS, BFCP will be removed and double flow (BFCP) is not possible between CUCM and VCS.

  If this has been resolved with VCS X7.0.3 and if not, what do I have to set in the profile of custom interop with CUCM area?

  Thank you!

  Tino

  Hi Tino,

  Thank you for this comment. I'll test in my lab.

  During this time the information you are looking for is you can get under the link below.

  http://www.Cisco.com/en/us/docs/Telepresence/infrastructure/VCs/config_guide/Cisco_VCS_Cisco_Unified_Communications_Manager_Deployment_Guide_CUCM_6-1_7_8_and_X7-0.PDF

  Please see page 46, where the parameter sets are given for the area such as CUCM.

  Thank you

  Alok

• Integration of Lync with VCS - key Option mandatory?

  We implement integration with VCS on x7.2 lync.  Using B2BUA with lync 2010.  Everything works internally with lync configuration, we are only having trouble with lync external participants come and we border routers in the mix.  Direct pools are set up under the name of trust.  We have turned on the highway of the tower.  The calls started from inward of Lync.  VCS sees calls says it is connected, but the appeal does not and then falls normal call clearing.

  My thought for the failure, is that the OCS Collaboration option key has not been added.  But I can't tell in the deployment guide, if this key is necessary only if the encryption is in progress.

  The other area that we now have on the border routers is if The Edge server and the firewall that the Edge transport server may move multimedia traffic through can then reconfigure to allow RTP over UDP and RTP over TCP to pass.

  Can you confirm if the key of the SCO is a requirement for Lync which crosses the highway?  And are there other areas which we recommend why calls set entirely outdoors.

  Hi Kim,

  the SCO cooperation improved option key is necessary for this scenario of appeal, stated at pages 13 and 53 in the Lync to X7.2 deployment guide:

  Calls on a Microsoft Edge server require the VCS have installed improved OCS Collaboration option key because this key allows the ICE to be used for media connectivity

  You are also right that you will need to allow RTP UDP traffic to and from your Edge transport server, as the TURN server on VCS Highway currently does not support the RTP over TCP. If this isn't the case, ice connectivity check between the B2BUA and the Lync client and server Edge fails, which in turn causes to disconnect.

  Hope this helps,

  Andreas

• VCS-Express and the integration of control VCS

  Hello

  I have the following question on the integration between VCS and VCS Express behind NAT devices.

  Control of VCS in the configuration of the area customer I will use the (Real) Global IP address location > Peer Address or I have to use the private IP address.

  Thank you

  Hello

  It depends on the interface how you have connected on the highway. So if you have two connected interfaces then the internal one is configured with a private address, and that you would use on the control to send traffic to. But to your question, I assume you have a connected only interface so you can use the public ip address for sent traffic of venture capital control.

  Ask if you need more information.

  Best regards / / Andrey

• Profile C40 with VCS Starter Pack Expressway system

  Hello guys,.

  Customer not want options like Firewall and the Conference (MCU 5300) crossing.

  But as this is a small script (there around 2 profile C40 + 2 SX20 10 video Jabber), I found that it will be interesting using VCS Starter Pack Expressway. He's no more than 50 records or 25 route calls as shown in the data sheet 'support '.

  I took a look at the topis here and also some documents and say that C40/SX20 are not supported for the supply, but since the SIP/h.323 support, calls should work perfectly.

  No doubt: that the client will lose in terms of features or benefits without the support of this commissioning endpoints?

  It would be a pain in the neck to enter the SX20 or C40 to VCS Starterpack expressway?

  http://www.Cisco.com/en/us/prod/collateral/ps7060/ps11305/ps11315/ps11337/data_sheet_c78-697075.html

  http://www.Cisco.com/en/us/docs/Telepresence/infrastructure/VCs/config_guide/Cisco_VCS_Expressway_Starter_Pack_Deployment_Guide_X7-2.PDF

  Thank you!

  Alan

  Olá Alan, respenderei em inglês para fica na don't base dados, mas design sao best respondidas send any video Business forum.

  About your 3 points, depends on:

  (1) even if you deploy the TMS, endpoint will try to get the directory using HTTP/HTTPS connection. If the endpoints are outside / internet, it may be refused by security reasons.

  (2) you can always configure auth on the StarterPack VCS to auth against the local database. At the endpoints configured manually, you can enter the identification information.

  (3) you can configure the bandwidth on VC (subareas or pipes) configuration control or limit directly to each endpoint

  The SX/MX/EX/C series can register the StarPack using a direct connection (h.323/SIP) or behind the FW/NAT using H.460.18/19 or assent. They can local Auth VCS DB. Be aware that the VCS S is usually installed in an external DMZ or directly with a public IP address. In this case, if you have 2 x SX to the internal network and the VCS at the DMZ (with NAT in the middle), all media will be hollow VCS, even if the two SX are on the same subnet.

  PS: Be careful where to include the VCS. If you use NAT on the VCS, basic network license need double.

  It will be useful.

  Concerning

  Elter

• Problem between CTS/CUBE/VCS

  We have a topology that looks like this:

  CTS-> CUCM-> CUBE-> VCS-> telepresence server.

  CTS-3000 s can make calls to the telepresence server, but the other way for a TC-3000 calls fail, with VCS search history gives a too small "Session Timer" error

  I must point out that demand for CTS-1000 units works very well in both directions.

  On the telepresence server, it seems to connect for a second before dropping.  The TP server logs indicate that the CTS-300 has negotiated OK TIP/SIP-MUX, then it disconnects immediately.

  I read documentationon 'Timer Session small' problem between VCS and CUCM and have made the appropriate changes, however I do not know how having a CUBE in the middle would be afefct this

  CUCM version: 8.6

  VCS: 5.1.1

  TP server: 2.2 (1.48)

  CUBE: IOS 15.1

  Hi Nick,

  I'm the engineer who worked on this through your ticket of TAC.  I know that you now have the fix, but I thought that I have would be the bases here in case others come across this thread with a similar problem.

  In this case, the error "Session Timer too small" came from the CUBE itself.  As you mentioned that you have the VCS and the CUCM set to 500, those who are OK.  However, the CUBE was always the default value of 1800 so he sent this error.  The fix for this is to change this value with the following commands:

  voip phone service

  SIP

  min - to 500-500 expires

  However in the end, wasn't the cause of the failure of the actual call.  Changing the value of the cube fixed 'too small logoff' mistakes, but always calls disconnected right after login.  The fix for this turned out be a CUCM configuration change, which I won't go into here.

• TMS + CUCM telephone directories

  Hi all

  When you work with a complete CPU, composed of the following deployment:

  • CUCM (8.6/9);
  • VCS-C/E;
  • MSDS;
  • Jabber for Windows (CUCM);
  • Active component URI between CUCM and VCS.

  Ideally, in this scenario, I would that all of my Jabber for Windows clients to see all room based systems that are registered in VCS, when they try to get a system/user.

  I know that these directories are two distinct entities, does anyone know if it is possible to propergate the "all systems" TMS phonebook in CUCM somehow, or would it be a manual process?

  Thank you, if

  Hi Simon,.

  We are working on a solution like this.  If your room based systems were kinesiologist to CUCM, they show up in the directory for all your CUCM based systems.  I understand that there is a reason why you want to way keep your room systems on the RESUME for the time being.

  In the next version of TMS, we will see a new type of telephone directory of "CUCM", which are all systems configured in CUCM.  So your TMS direct managed or put into service endpoints will be able to see all systems no matter where they are registered.

  TMS systems are avaiable in directories CUCM is identified as a highly desirable item, but currently I don't have a timeline.

  Andrew - TME for TMS

• MX700, MX800 and SX80 supported VCS is?

  Hello

  I was wondering if the new MX700, MX800 and SX80 are supported on the RESUME.

  Records mention only CUCM, but do not mention VCS.

  Guess a lot of people have similar issues. We have been confirmed by an engineer to Support Cisco SX and MX series are supported by VCS (maybe need latest version as V8.1.1), whereas the DX series are only supported by CUCM.

  Hope that helps.

• VCS FindMe vs TMS FindMe

  Ladies and gentlemen,

  I have integrated our VCS (including management FindMe) in terms of a TMS, but subsequently in the VCS > status > Application > menu user Lync State I see the CMRS only, but not the end points recorded.
  I have several questions:

  1. How can I configure the TMS to publish endpoints of telepresence as an account FindMe (to see them as a registered Lync client)
  2. Currently all CMR have the status offline, is it possible to change their default online status?
  3. Finally: How can I restore the FindMe management to VCS of the TMS. In the latter case, I would be happy if I could put in place.

  Thank you
  Laszlo

  You can use TMSPE for a variety of uses, such as the provision of devices, FindMe, Collaboration meeting rooms, etc.  In your case, you use it to FindMe and CMR.

  Under Provisioning > users, manually create or import AD users and assign them a 'video address model. "  The boss of the address of the video will be their address FindMe and them will automatically create a FindMe account for each user in Provisioning > FindMe where all you have to do is to create associated device addresses, and locations, etc. that will connect to the address the user FindMe.

  The menu devices is for devices implemented and can be ignored in your case because you are not provisioning all devices through the VCS.

• TMS 14.3 - auto connect problem - multiple call attempts

  Hi people,

  I have a client with an environment with TMS 14.3, conductor XC 2.2, VCS 7.2.2 TP Server 3.1 and CUCM 8.6.2. They have several items on VCS and several endpoints of CTS/TX registered to CUCM Cisco and Polycom endpoints. There is a trunk SIP between CUCM and VCS. Conductor is integrated with VCS by using the B2BUA deployment model. TP server is behind the driver used as multipoint resource only for conferences scheduled through TMS.

  We are having problems when planning a Conference at TMS using type "Auto-connect" and setting driver to dial a number to the selected participants. For some end points when the meeting starts, conductor made several calls try to participants, even after participants answering the call. For example, conductor connects to an endpoint 3000 CTS, CTS answers the call and connect to the meeting, but a few seconds later, conductor's call another attempt at the endpoint, then endpoint answers the second call and put the first call on hold.

  This problem occurs for the following parameters:

  • Endpoints of Polycom HDX series
  • CUCM items of endpoint CTS/TX
  • Outside dial participants (those selected on the tab 'External' to the planning page)

  The problem does not occur for any endpoint TC registered in VCS.

  As a troubleshooting step, the client was trying to configure TMS to try to connect to the participants once (using the "Attempts to connect for scheduled calls" setting value 1), but the issue still occur.

  Tomorrow, I'll be on the customer's site to check if this strange behavior has been generated by TMS or by the chef himself. I really think that it is some sort of bug. I don't know that their environment has been configured properly according to the Cisco documentation, because I was the person who made the project.

  I'd appreciate any suggestions really.   =)

  Thanks in advance.

  Paulo Souza

  My answer was helpful? Please note the useful answers and do not forget to mark questions resolved as "responded."

  Hi Paulo,

  a few days back we had seen this problem and I filed the bug "CSCui90143."

  Currently, we anticipate that this problem occurs because the MSD is not able to understand the message of feedback from the conductor.

  I hope that clarifies. I don't have to if you want to be able to access the bug or not.

  Rgds

  Alok

• CTS calling not of C series running software TC5

  I'm having a problem where the calls of CTS does not call Tangberd C series exploiting TC5.1 software.

  Here's the whole upward;

  CTS registered series CUCM and C registered in VCS

  There is a trunk between CUCM and VCS.

  Version

  CTS - 1.8.1, sereis C - TC5.1, CUCM 7.1 VCS 8.6.2,

  CTS is not a call to the endpoint TC5 but if I downgrade to TC4. the call goes thru.

  Everyone is run in this kind of problem? If so, can you share me your solution please?

  Hi Zaw,

  I saw a similar question in the past on CUCM 8.6.2 where the present of a URI in the SIP contact header and the CUCM TC5 endpoint tries a DNS reverse lookup on the server of the URI that fails and pulls the call.

  I would need to see traces CUCM to confirm, it comes to the question, but if I remember well him endpoint CTS would a 503 Service Unavailable message.

  If you control the DNS server that the CUCM is pointed, so you could try adding a fake a record for your SIP on VCS domain to see if it helps.

  It may be preferable to prosecute in order to explore all the options your TAC.

  Thank you

  Paul