Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Cisco: VOIP

CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail

 

 

Cisco voip RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


grccie at gmail

Feb 16, 2012, 4:17 PM

Post #1 of 16 (3172 views)
Permalink
CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail

Hi List,

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.

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

Thanks,
GR


VanMarenNP at ldschurch

Feb 17, 2012, 8:03 AM

Post #2 of 16 (3086 views)
Permalink
Re: CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail [In reply to]

Two things off the top of my head.


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.

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.

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.

-Nate

From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of gr11
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:17 PM
To: cisco-voip [at] puck
Subject: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail

Hi List,

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.

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

Thanks,
GR


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.


jason.aarons at dimensiondata

Feb 17, 2012, 9:35 AM

Post #3 of 16 (3075 views)
Permalink
Re: CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail [In reply to]

I think I understand that Exchange 2010 has a crappy sip stack. Good info. <lol>

From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Nate VanMaren
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 11:03 AM
To: gr11; cisco-voip [at] puck
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail


Two things off the top of my head.


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.

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.

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.

-Nate

From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of gr11
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:17 PM
To: cisco-voip [at] puck
Subject: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail

Hi List,

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.

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

Thanks,
GR


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.



itevomcid


grccie at gmail

Feb 17, 2012, 1:59 PM

Post #4 of 16 (3145 views)
Permalink
Re: CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail [In reply to]

Thanks Nate, Jason! Valuable information, I will keep this in mind.

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?

Thanks,
GR


Sent from my iPhone

On 18/02/2012, at 4:35 AM, "Jason Aarons (AM)" <jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata> wrote:

> I think I understand that Exchange 2010 has a crappy sip stack. Good info. <lol>
>
> From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Nate VanMaren
> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 11:03 AM
> To: gr11; cisco-voip [at] puck
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail
>
>
>
> Two things off the top of my head.
>
> 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.
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> -Nate
>
> From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of gr11
> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:17 PM
> To: cisco-voip [at] puck
> Subject: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail
>
> Hi List,
>
> 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.
>
> 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
>
> Thanks,
> GR
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> itevomcid


VanMarenNP at ldschurch

Feb 17, 2012, 2:02 PM

Post #5 of 16 (3153 views)
Permalink
Re: CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail [In reply to]

Yea there isn’t really “ports” that you have to worry about on the SIP integrations, just max number of calls.

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.

http://www.agileit.com/Blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=820

http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?id=13591


From: Gr [mailto:grccie [at] gmail]
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 3:00 PM
To: Jason Aarons (AM); Nate VanMaren
Cc: cisco-voip [at] puck
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail

Thanks Nate, Jason! Valuable information, I will keep this in mind.

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?

Thanks,
GR


Sent from my iPhone

On 18/02/2012, at 4:35 AM, "Jason Aarons (AM)" <jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata<mailto:jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata>> wrote:
I think I understand that Exchange 2010 has a crappy sip stack. Good info. <lol>

From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]<mailto:[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]> On Behalf Of Nate VanMaren
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 11:03 AM
To: gr11; cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail


Two things off the top of my head.


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.

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.

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.

-Nate

From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]<mailto:[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]> On Behalf Of gr11
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:17 PM
To: cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>
Subject: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail

Hi List,

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.

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

Thanks,
GR


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.



itevomcid


grccie at gmail

Feb 17, 2012, 2:19 PM

Post #6 of 16 (3107 views)
Permalink
Re: CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail [In reply to]

Nate thanks for your quick response. This clears up the confusion its like
routing voice mail calls from CUCM over the SIP trunk to user's voice
mailbox. The only thing we have to keep in mind is like other SIP Call
routing is max number of calls. No voice mail ports...

Thanks Again much appreciated.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Nate VanMaren <VanMarenNP [at] ldschurch>wrote:

> Yea there isnt really ports that you have to worry about on the SIP
> integrations, just max number of calls.****
>
> ** **
>
> 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.****
>
> ** **
>
> http://www.agileit.com/Blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=820****
>
> ** **
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?id=13591****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Gr [mailto:grccie [at] gmail]
> *Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2012 3:00 PM
> *To:* Jason Aarons (AM); Nate VanMaren
> *Cc:* cisco-voip [at] puck
>
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for
> Voice mail****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks Nate, Jason! Valuable information, I will keep this in mind.****
>
> ** **
>
> 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?****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,****
>
> GR****
>
> ** **
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone****
>
>
> On 18/02/2012, at 4:35 AM, "Jason Aarons (AM)" <
> jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata> wrote:****
>
> I think I understand that Exchange 2010 has a crappy sip stack. Good
> info. <lol>****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] *On Behalf Of *Nate VanMaren
> *Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2012 11:03 AM
> *To:* gr11; cisco-voip [at] puck
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for
> Voice mail****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> Two things off the top of my head.****
>
> ****
>
> **1. ** Exchange has a crappy sip stack. So you have to use a MTP
> on the SIP trunk because it wont deal with RTP source/destination changes
> in a session. Like when someone does a supervised transfer to voicemail.*
> ***
>
> **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.****
>
> ****
>
> 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.****
>
> ****
>
> -Nate****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] *On Behalf Of *gr11
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:17 PM
> *To:* cisco-voip [at] puck
> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice
> mail****
>
> ****
>
> Hi List,
>
> 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.
>
> 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
>
> Thanks,
> GR****
>
>
>
> 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.****
>
> ****
>
>
>
> itevomcid ****
>
>


bill at hitechconnection

Feb 23, 2012, 1:13 PM

Post #7 of 16 (3008 views)
Permalink
Re: CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail [In reply to]

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.




On February 17, 2012 at 5:02 PM Nate VanMaren <VanMarenNP [at] ldschurch>
wrote:

> Yea there isn’t really “ports” that you have to worry about on the SIP
integrations, just max number of calls.
>
> 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.
>
> http://www.agileit.com/Blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=820
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?id=13591
>
>
> From: Gr [mailto:grccie [at] gmail]
> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 3:00 PM
> To: Jason Aarons (AM); Nate VanMaren
> Cc: cisco-voip [at] puck
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for
Voice mail
>
> Thanks Nate, Jason! Valuable information, I will keep this in mind.
>
> 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?
>
> Thanks,
> GR
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 18/02/2012, at 4:35 AM, "Jason Aarons (AM)"
<jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata<mailto:jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata>>
wrote:
> I think I understand that Exchange 2010 has a crappy sip stack. Good
info. <lol>
>
> From:
cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]<mailto:[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]>
On Behalf Of Nate VanMaren
> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 11:03 AM
> To: gr11; cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for
Voice mail
>
>
> Two things off the top of my head.
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> -Nate
>
> From:
cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]<mailto:[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]>
On Behalf Of gr11
> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:17 PM
> To: cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>
> Subject: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice
mail
>
> Hi List,
>
> 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.
>
> 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
>
> Thanks,
> GR
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> itevomcid


ewellnitzvoip at gmail

Feb 23, 2012, 1:27 PM

Post #8 of 16 (3001 views)
Permalink
Re: CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail [In reply to]

Sorry to pile on...

Last I investigated Exchange UM there were issues with MWI and a third
party app had to be purchased to make it work correctly.

Has this been resolved?

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 3:13 PM, bill [at] hitechconnection <
bill [at] hitechconnection> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> On February 17, 2012 at 5:02 PM Nate VanMaren <VanMarenNP [at] ldschurch>
> wrote:
>
> > Yea there isnt really ports that you have to worry about on the SIP
> integrations, just max number of calls.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > http://www.agileit.com/Blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=820
> >
> > http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?id=13591
> >
> >
> > From: Gr [mailto:grccie [at] gmail]
> > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 3:00 PM
> > To: Jason Aarons (AM); Nate VanMaren
> > Cc: cisco-voip [at] puck
> > Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for
> Voice mail
> >
> > Thanks Nate, Jason! Valuable information, I will keep this in mind.
> >
> > 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?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > GR
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On 18/02/2012, at 4:35 AM, "Jason Aarons (AM)" <
> jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata<mailto:jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata>>
> wrote:
> > I think I understand that Exchange 2010 has a crappy sip stack. Good
> info. <lol>
> >
> > From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck> [mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]<mailto:[mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]> On Behalf Of Nate VanMaren
> > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 11:03 AM
> > To: gr11; cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>
> > Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for
> Voice mail
> >
> >
> > Two things off the top of my head.
> >
> >
> > 1. Exchange has a crappy sip stack. So you have to use a MTP on
> the SIP trunk because it wont deal with RTP source/destination changes in
> a session. Like when someone does a supervised transfer to voicemail.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > -Nate
> >
> > From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck> [mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]<mailto:[mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]> On Behalf Of gr11
> > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:17 PM
> > To: cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>
> > Subject: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice
> mail
> >
> > Hi List,
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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
> >
> > Thanks,
> > GR
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > itevomcid
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>


VanMarenNP at ldschurch

Feb 23, 2012, 2:03 PM

Post #9 of 16 (3082 views)
Permalink
Re: CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail [In reply to]

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.

Just depends on the needs.

From: bill [at] hitechconnection [mailto:bill [at] hitechconnection]
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 2:14 PM
To: Jason Aarons (AM); Nate VanMaren; Gr
Cc: cisco-voip [at] puck
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail




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.



On February 17, 2012 at 5:02 PM Nate VanMaren <VanMarenNP [at] ldschurch<mailto:VanMarenNP [at] ldschurch>> wrote:

> Yea there isn’t really “ports” that you have to worry about on the SIP integrations, just max number of calls.
>
> 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.
>
> http://www.agileit.com/Blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=820
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?id=13591
>
>
> From: Gr [mailto:grccie [at] gmail]<mailto:[mailto:grccie [at] gmail]>
> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 3:00 PM
> To: Jason Aarons (AM); Nate VanMaren
> Cc: cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail
>
> Thanks Nate, Jason! Valuable information, I will keep this in mind.
>
> 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?
>
> Thanks,
> GR
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 18/02/2012, at 4:35 AM, "Jason Aarons (AM)" <jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata<mailto:jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata<mailto:jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata%3cmailto:jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata>>> wrote:
> I think I understand that Exchange 2010 has a crappy sip stack. Good info. <lol>
>
> From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck%3cmailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]<mailto:[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]><mailto:[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]> On Behalf Of Nate VanMaren
> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 11:03 AM
> To: gr11; cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck%3cmailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail
>
>
> Two things off the top of my head.
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> -Nate
>
> From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck%3cmailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]<mailto:[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]><mailto:[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]> On Behalf Of gr11
> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:17 PM
> To: cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck%3cmailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>>
> Subject: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail
>
> Hi List,
>
> 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.
>
> 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
>
> Thanks,
> GR
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> itevomcid


VanMarenNP at ldschurch

Feb 23, 2012, 2:27 PM

Post #10 of 16 (3071 views)
Permalink
Re: CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail [In reply to]

Yep fixed in Exchange 2010. Works very well, including message counts.



From: Erick Wellnitz [mailto:ewellnitzvoip [at] gmail]
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 2:28 PM
To: bill [at] hitechconnection
Cc: Jason Aarons (AM); Nate VanMaren; Gr; cisco-voip [at] puck
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail

Sorry to pile on...

Last I investigated Exchange UM there were issues with MWI and a third party app had to be purchased to make it work correctly.

Has this been resolved?
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 3:13 PM, bill [at] hitechconnection<mailto:bill [at] hitechconnection> <bill [at] hitechconnection<mailto:bill [at] hitechconnection>> wrote:



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.



On February 17, 2012 at 5:02 PM Nate VanMaren <VanMarenNP [at] ldschurch<mailto:VanMarenNP [at] ldschurch>> wrote:

> Yea there isn't really "ports" that you have to worry about on the SIP integrations, just max number of calls.
>
> 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.
>
> http://www.agileit.com/Blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=820
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?id=13591
>
>
> From: Gr [mailto:grccie [at] gmail<mailto:grccie [at] gmail>]
> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 3:00 PM
> To: Jason Aarons (AM); Nate VanMaren
> Cc: cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail
>
> Thanks Nate, Jason! Valuable information, I will keep this in mind.
>
> 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?
>
> Thanks,
> GR
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 18/02/2012, at 4:35 AM, "Jason Aarons (AM)" <jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata<mailto:jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata><mailto:jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata<mailto:jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata>>> wrote:
> I think I understand that Exchange 2010 has a crappy sip stack. Good info. <lol>
>
> From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck><mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>]<mailto:[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>]> On Behalf Of Nate VanMaren
> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 11:03 AM
> To: gr11; cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck><mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail
>
>
> Two things off the top of my head.
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> -Nate
>
> From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck><mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>]<mailto:[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>]> On Behalf Of gr11
> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:17 PM
> To: cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck><mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>>
> Subject: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail
>
> Hi List,
>
> 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.
>
> 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
>
> Thanks,
> GR
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> itevomcid

_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


bill at hitechconnection

Feb 24, 2012, 5:29 AM

Post #11 of 16 (3014 views)
Permalink
Re: CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail [In reply to]

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.




On February 23, 2012 at 5:03 PM Nate VanMaren <VanMarenNP [at] ldschurch>
wrote:

> 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.
>
> Just depends on the needs.
>
> From: bill [at] hitechconnection [mailto:bill [at] hitechconnection]
> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 2:14 PM
> To: Jason Aarons (AM); Nate VanMaren; Gr
> Cc: cisco-voip [at] puck
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for
Voice mail
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> On February 17, 2012 at 5:02 PM Nate VanMaren
<VanMarenNP [at] ldschurch<mailto:VanMarenNP [at] ldschurch>> wrote:
>
> > Yea there isn’t really “ports” that you have to worry about on the SIP
integrations, just max number of calls.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > http://www.agileit.com/Blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=820
> >
> > http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?id=13591
> >
> >
> > From: Gr [mailto:grccie [at] gmail]<mailto:[mailto:grccie [at] gmail]>
> > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 3:00 PM
> > To: Jason Aarons (AM); Nate VanMaren
> > Cc: cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>
> > Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for
Voice mail
> >
> > Thanks Nate, Jason! Valuable information, I will keep this in mind.
> >
> > 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?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > GR
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On 18/02/2012, at 4:35 AM, "Jason Aarons (AM)"
<jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata<mailto:jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata<mailto:jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata%3cmailto:jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata>>>
wrote:
> > I think I understand that Exchange 2010 has a crappy sip stack. Good
info. <lol>
> >
> > From:
cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck%3cmailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>>
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]<mailto:[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]><mailto:[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]>
On Behalf Of Nate VanMaren
> > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 11:03 AM
> > To: gr11;
cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck%3cmailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>>
> > Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for
Voice mail
> >
> >
> > Two things off the top of my head.
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > -Nate
> >
> > From:
cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck%3cmailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>>
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]<mailto:[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]><mailto:[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]>
On Behalf Of gr11
> > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:17 PM
> > To:
cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck%3cmailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>>
> > Subject: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice
mail
> >
> > Hi List,
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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
> >
> > Thanks,
> > GR
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > itevomcid


grant.teague at gmail

Feb 24, 2012, 11:15 AM

Post #12 of 16 (3087 views)
Permalink
Re: CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail [In reply to]

Hi Bill

Here is 10 reason why Unity CxN over Exchange 2010.


Separate Message Store for Discovery and Compliance Purposes

a. Exchange UM stores email and voicemail on the same server

b. Unity Connection stores voice messages separately from the email
store overcoming legal discoverability concerns

Enterprise Scalability

a. Exchange UM experiences issues at as low as 40 ports in use per
server (MCS 7845 equivalent)

b. Unity Connection 8.6 scales to 250 ports per server (MCS 7845
equivalent)

Virtualization Support

a. Microsoft announced support for virtualization in May 2011. Requires
4 physical processor cores at all times.

b. Unity Connection 8.6 supports virtualization on Cisco UCS, HP, and
IBM platforms

Environmental Dependencies

a. Exchange UM depends on Active Directory and 3 Exchange server
roles to operate

b. Unity Connection offers optional integrations with Active Directory
and Microsoft Exchange (TTS, calendaring, import contacts)

High Availability

a. Microsoft requires 4x the number of servers to achieve an
equivalent SLA as Unity Connection (2 GCs, 2 Mailbox servers, 2 UM
servers, 2 Hub Transport servers)

b. Unity Connection provides 2-server Active/Active clustering
solutions for High Availability

Architecture

a. Exchange UM supports centralized messaging only, no SRSV-like
functionality. Theres no support of networking with 3rd-party voicemail
systems

b. Unity Connection 8.6 supports both centralized and distributed
messaging, SRST, SRSV, and supports networking with other Cisco voicemail
systems and 3rd-party voicemail systems

Voicemail Interoperability

a. Microsoft Exchange UM does not support networking with 3rd-party
voicemail systems.

b. Cisco Unity Connection supports VPIM networking

Client Support

a. Exchange UM supports Outlook, OWA, OVA, ASR, Windows Mobile, and
other mobile clients via mp3

b. 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

Secure Messaging

a. Exchange UM requires Rights Management Service (RMS) for private
messages (additional server, license)

b. Natively supports secure, private messaging and optionally also
securely deletes messages from hard drive

Calendaring

a. Exchange UM supports calendaring in Exchange 2007 and 2010

b. Unity Connection supports calendaring in Exchange 2003, 2007, and
2010

hope this helps.

regards

Grant

On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 1:29 PM, bill [at] hitechconnection <
bill [at] hitechconnection> wrote:

> **
>
> So I still dont 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.
>
>
>
> On February 23, 2012 at 5:03 PM Nate VanMaren <VanMarenNP [at] ldschurch>
> wrote:
>
> > Its 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.
> >
> > Just depends on the needs.
> >
> > From: bill [at] hitechconnection [mailto:bill [at] hitechconnection]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 2:14 PM
> > To: Jason Aarons (AM); Nate VanMaren; Gr
> > Cc: cisco-voip [at] puck
> > Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for
> Voice mail
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > On February 17, 2012 at 5:02 PM Nate VanMaren <VanMarenNP [at] ldschurch
> <mailto:VanMarenNP [at] ldschurch>> wrote:
> >
> > > Yea there isnt really ports that you have to worry about on the SIP
> integrations, just max number of calls.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > http://www.agileit.com/Blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=820
> > >
> > > http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?id=13591
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Gr [mailto:grccie [at] gmail]<mailto:[mailto:grccie [at] gmail]>
> > > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 3:00 PM
> > > To: Jason Aarons (AM); Nate VanMaren
> > > Cc: cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>
> > > Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for
> Voice mail
> > >
> > > Thanks Nate, Jason! Valuable information, I will keep this in mind.
> > >
> > > 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?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > GR
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > On 18/02/2012, at 4:35 AM, "Jason Aarons (AM)" <
> jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata<mailto:jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata
> <mailto:jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata%
> 3cmailto:jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata>>> wrote:
> > > I think I understand that Exchange 2010 has a crappy sip stack. Good
> info. <lol>
> > >
> > > From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck%
> 3cmailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>> [mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]<mailto:[mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]><mailto:[mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]> On Behalf Of Nate VanMaren
> > > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 11:03 AM
> > > To: gr11; cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck
> <mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck%3cmailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>>
> > > Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for
> Voice mail
> > >
> > >
> > > Two things off the top of my head.
> > >
> > >
> > > 1. Exchange has a crappy sip stack. So you have to use a MTP on
> the SIP trunk because it wont deal with RTP source/destination changes in
> a session. Like when someone does a supervised transfer to voicemail.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > -Nate
> > >
> > > From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck%
> 3cmailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>> [mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]<mailto:[mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]><mailto:[mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]> On Behalf Of gr11
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:17 PM
> > > To: cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck
> <mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck%3cmailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>>
> > > Subject: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for
> Voice mail
> > >
> > > Hi List,
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > GR
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > itevomcid
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>


--
keep living the dream


VanMarenNP at ldschurch

Feb 24, 2012, 12:04 PM

Post #13 of 16 (3135 views)
Permalink
Re: CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail [In reply to]

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.

-Nate

From: Grant Teague [mailto:grant.teague [at] gmail]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 12:16 PM
To: bill [at] hitechconnection
Cc: Jason Aarons (AM); Nate VanMaren; Gr; cisco-voip [at] puck
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail

Hi Bill

Here is 10 reason why Unity CxN over Exchange 2010.

Separate Message Store for Discovery and Compliance Purposes

a. Exchange UM stores email and voicemail on the same server

b. Unity Connection stores voice messages separately from the email store overcoming legal discoverability concerns
Enterprise Scalability

a. Exchange UM experiences issues at as low as 40 ports in use per server (MCS 7845 equivalent)

b. Unity Connection 8.6 scales to 250 ports per server (MCS 7845 equivalent)
Virtualization Support

a. Microsoft announced support for virtualization in May 2011. Requires 4 physical processor cores at all times.

b. Unity Connection 8.6 supports virtualization on Cisco UCS, HP, and IBM platforms
Environmental Dependencies

a. Exchange UM depends on Active Directory and 3 Exchange server roles to operate

b. Unity Connection offers optional integrations with Active Directory and Microsoft Exchange (TTS, calendaring, import contacts)
High Availability

a. 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)

b. Unity Connection provides 2-server Active/Active clustering solutions for High Availability
Architecture

a. Exchange UM supports centralized messaging only, no SRSV-like functionality. There's no support of networking with 3rd-party voicemail systems

b. Unity Connection 8.6 supports both centralized and distributed messaging, SRST, SRSV, and supports networking with other Cisco voicemail systems and 3rd-party voicemail systems
Voicemail Interoperability

a. Microsoft Exchange UM does not support networking with 3rd-party voicemail systems.

b. Cisco Unity Connection supports VPIM networking
Client Support

a. Exchange UM supports Outlook, OWA, OVA, ASR, Windows Mobile, and other mobile clients via mp3

b. 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
Secure Messaging

a. Exchange UM requires Rights Management Service (RMS) for private messages (additional server, license)

b. Natively supports secure, private messaging and optionally also securely deletes messages from hard drive
Calendaring

a. Exchange UM supports calendaring in Exchange 2007 and 2010

b. Unity Connection supports calendaring in Exchange 2003, 2007, and 2010

hope this helps.

regards

Grant
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 1:29 PM, bill [at] hitechconnection<mailto:bill [at] hitechconnection> <bill [at] hitechconnection<mailto:bill [at] hitechconnection>> wrote:

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.



On February 23, 2012 at 5:03 PM Nate VanMaren <VanMarenNP [at] ldschurch<mailto:VanMarenNP [at] ldschurch>> wrote:

> 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.
>
> Just depends on the needs.
>
> From: bill [at] hitechconnection<mailto:bill [at] hitechconnection> [mailto:bill [at] hitechconnection<mailto:bill [at] hitechconnection>]
> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 2:14 PM
> To: Jason Aarons (AM); Nate VanMaren; Gr
> Cc: cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> On February 17, 2012 at 5:02 PM Nate VanMaren <VanMarenNP [at] ldschurch<mailto:VanMarenNP [at] ldschurch><mailto:VanMarenNP [at] ldschurch<mailto:VanMarenNP [at] ldschurch>>> wrote:
>
> > Yea there isn't really "ports" that you have to worry about on the SIP integrations, just max number of calls.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > http://www.agileit.com/Blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=820
> >
> > http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?id=13591
> >
> >
> > From: Gr [mailto:grccie [at] gmail<mailto:grccie [at] gmail>]<mailto:[mailto:grccie [at] gmail<mailto:grccie [at] gmail>]>
> > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 3:00 PM
> > To: Jason Aarons (AM); Nate VanMaren
> > Cc: cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck><mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>>
> > Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail
> >
> > Thanks Nate, Jason! Valuable information, I will keep this in mind.
> >
> > 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?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > GR
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On 18/02/2012, at 4:35 AM, "Jason Aarons (AM)" <jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata<mailto:jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata><mailto:jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata<mailto:jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata><mailto:jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata<mailto:jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata>%3cmailto:jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata<mailto:3cmailto%3Ajason.aarons [at] dimensiondata>>>> wrote:
> > I think I understand that Exchange 2010 has a crappy sip stack. Good info. <lol>
> >
> > From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck><mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck><mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>%3cmailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:3cmailto%3Acisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>>> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>]<mailto:[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>]><mailto:[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>]> On Behalf Of Nate VanMaren
> > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 11:03 AM
> > To: gr11; cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck><mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck><mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>%3cmailto:cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:3cmailto%3Acisco-voip [at] puck>>>
> > Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail
> >
> >
> > Two things off the top of my head.
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > -Nate
> >
> > From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck><mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck><mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>%3cmailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:3cmailto%3Acisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>>> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>]<mailto:[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>]><mailto:[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>]> On Behalf Of gr11
> > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:17 PM
> > To: cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck><mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck><mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>%3cmailto:cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:3cmailto%3Acisco-voip [at] puck>>>
> > Subject: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail
> >
> > Hi List,
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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
> >
> > Thanks,
> > GR
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > itevomcid

_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip



--
keep living the dream


bill at hitechconnection

Feb 24, 2012, 12:56 PM

Post #14 of 16 (3032 views)
Permalink
Re: CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail [In reply to]

Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.




On February 24, 2012 at 2:15 PM Grant Teague <grant.teague [at] gmail>
wrote:

> Hi Bill
>
> Here is 10 reason why Unity CxN over Exchange 2010.
>
>
> Separate Message Store for Discovery and Compliance Purposes
>
> a. Exchange UM stores email and voicemail on the same server
>
> b. Unity Connection stores voice messages separately from the email
> store overcoming legal discoverability concerns
>
> Enterprise Scalability
>
> a. Exchange UM experiences issues at as low as 40 ports in use per
> server (MCS 7845 equivalent)
>
> b. Unity Connection 8.6 scales to 250 ports per server (MCS 7845
> equivalent)
>
> Virtualization Support
>
> a. Microsoft announced support for virtualization in May 2011.
Requires
> 4 physical processor cores at all times.
>
> b. Unity Connection 8.6 supports virtualization on Cisco UCS, HP,
and
> IBM platforms
>
> Environmental Dependencies
>
> a. Exchange UM depends on Active Directory and 3 Exchange server
> roles to operate
>
> b. Unity Connection offers optional integrations with Active
Directory
> and Microsoft Exchange (TTS, calendaring, import contacts)
>
> High Availability
>
> a. 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)
>
> b. Unity Connection provides 2-server Active/Active clustering
> solutions for High Availability
>
> Architecture
>
> a. Exchange UM supports centralized messaging only, no SRSV-like
> functionality. There’s no support of networking with 3rd-party voicemail
> systems
>
> b. Unity Connection 8.6 supports both centralized and distributed
> messaging, SRST, SRSV, and supports networking with other Cisco voicemail
> systems and 3rd-party voicemail systems
>
> Voicemail Interoperability
>
> a. Microsoft Exchange UM does not support networking with 3rd-party
> voicemail systems.
>
> b. Cisco Unity Connection supports VPIM networking
>
> Client Support
>
> a. Exchange UM supports Outlook, OWA, OVA, ASR, Windows Mobile, and
> other mobile clients via mp3
>
> b. 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
>
> Secure Messaging
>
> a. Exchange UM requires Rights Management Service (RMS) for private
> messages (additional server, license)
>
> b. Natively supports secure, private messaging and optionally also
> securely deletes messages from hard drive
>
> Calendaring
>
> a. Exchange UM supports calendaring in Exchange 2007 and 2010
>
> b. Unity Connection supports calendaring in Exchange 2003, 2007, and
> 2010
>
> hope this helps.
>
> regards
>
> Grant
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 1:29 PM, bill [at] hitechconnection <
> bill [at] hitechconnection> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > On February 23, 2012 at 5:03 PM Nate VanMaren
<VanMarenNP [at] ldschurch>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > Just depends on the needs.
> > >
> > > From: bill [at] hitechconnection [mailto:bill [at] hitechconnection]
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 2:14 PM
> > > To: Jason Aarons (AM); Nate VanMaren; Gr
> > > Cc: cisco-voip [at] puck
> > > Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for
> > Voice mail
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On February 17, 2012 at 5:02 PM Nate VanMaren
<VanMarenNP [at] ldschurch
> > <mailto:VanMarenNP [at] ldschurch>> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yea there isn’t really “ports” that you have to worry about on the
SIP
> > integrations, just max number of calls.
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.agileit.com/Blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=820
> > > >
> > > > http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?id=13591
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Gr
[mailto:grccie [at] gmail]<mailto:[mailto:grccie [at] gmail]>
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 3:00 PM
> > > > To: Jason Aarons (AM); Nate VanMaren
> > > > Cc: cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>
> > > > Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010
for
> > Voice mail
> > > >
> > > > Thanks Nate, Jason! Valuable information, I will keep this in mind.
> > > >
> > > > 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?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > GR
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > >
> > > > On 18/02/2012, at 4:35 AM, "Jason Aarons (AM)" <
> > jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata<mailto:jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata
> > <mailto:jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata%
> > 3cmailto:jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata>>> wrote:
> > > > I think I understand that Exchange 2010 has a crappy sip stack.
Good
> > info. <lol>
> > > >
> > > > From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:
> > cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:
> > cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck%
> > 3cmailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>> [mailto:
> > cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]<mailto:[mailto:
> > cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]><mailto:[mailto:
> > cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]> On Behalf Of Nate VanMaren
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 11:03 AM
> > > > To: gr11;
cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck
> >
<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck%3cmailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>>
> > > > Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010
for
> > Voice mail
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Two things off the top of my head.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > -Nate
> > > >
> > > > From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:
> > cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:
> > cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck%
> > 3cmailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>> [mailto:
> > cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]<mailto:[mailto:
> > cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]><mailto:[mailto:
> > cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]> On Behalf Of gr11
> > > > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:17 PM
> > > > To: cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck
> >
<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck%3cmailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>>
> > > > Subject: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for
> > Voice mail
> > > >
> > > > Hi List,
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > GR
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > itevomcid
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-voip mailing list
> > cisco-voip [at] puck
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> keep living the dream


svoll.voip at gmail

Feb 24, 2012, 1:55 PM

Post #15 of 16 (3153 views)
Permalink
Re: CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail [In reply to]

the two big things for us..... end up being discovery......
and Transferring calls and call handlers...... Something Exchange has had
issues with in the past. don't know if that has been fixed.

Scott

On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 12:56 PM, bill [at] hitechconnection <
bill [at] hitechconnection> wrote:

> **
>
> Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.
>
>
>
> On February 24, 2012 at 2:15 PM Grant Teague <grant.teague [at] gmail>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Bill
> >
> > Here is 10 reason why Unity CxN over Exchange 2010.
> >
> >
> > Separate Message Store for Discovery and Compliance Purposes
> >
> > a. Exchange UM stores email and voicemail on the same server
> >
> > b. Unity Connection stores voice messages separately from the email
> > store overcoming legal discoverability concerns
> >
> > Enterprise Scalability
> >
> > a. Exchange UM experiences issues at as low as 40 ports in use per
> > server (MCS 7845 equivalent)
> >
> > b. Unity Connection 8.6 scales to 250 ports per server (MCS 7845
> > equivalent)
> >
> > Virtualization Support
> >
> > a. Microsoft announced support for virtualization in May 2011.
> Requires
> > 4 physical processor cores at all times.
> >
> > b. Unity Connection 8.6 supports virtualization on Cisco UCS, HP,
> and
> > IBM platforms
> >
> > Environmental Dependencies
> >
> > a. Exchange UM depends on Active Directory and 3 Exchange server
> > roles to operate
> >
> > b. Unity Connection offers optional integrations with Active
> Directory
> > and Microsoft Exchange (TTS, calendaring, import contacts)
> >
> > High Availability
> >
> > a. Microsoft requires 4x the number of servers to achieve an
> > equivalent SLA as Unity Connection (2 GCs, 2 Mailbox servers, 2 UM
> > servers, 2 Hub Transport servers)
> >
> > b. Unity Connection provides 2-server Active/Active clustering
> > solutions for High Availability
> >
> > Architecture
> >
> > a. Exchange UM supports centralized messaging only, no SRSV-like
> > functionality. Theres no support of networking with 3rd-party
> voicemail
> > systems
> >
> > b. Unity Connection 8.6 supports both centralized and distributed
> > messaging, SRST, SRSV, and supports networking with other Cisco
> voicemail
> > systems and 3rd-party voicemail systems
> >
> > Voicemail Interoperability
> >
> > a. Microsoft Exchange UM does not support networking with
> 3rd-party
> > voicemail systems.
> >
> > b. Cisco Unity Connection supports VPIM networking
> >
> > Client Support
> >
> > a. Exchange UM supports Outlook, OWA, OVA, ASR, Windows Mobile,
> and
> > other mobile clients via mp3
> >
> > b. 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
> >
> > Secure Messaging
> >
> > a. Exchange UM requires Rights Management Service (RMS) for
> private
> > messages (additional server, license)
> >
> > b. Natively supports secure, private messaging and optionally also
> > securely deletes messages from hard drive
> >
> > Calendaring
> >
> > a. Exchange UM supports calendaring in Exchange 2007 and 2010
> >
> > b. Unity Connection supports calendaring in Exchange 2003, 2007,
> and
> > 2010
> >
> > hope this helps.
> >
> > regards
> >
> > Grant
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 1:29 PM, bill [at] hitechconnection <
> > bill [at] hitechconnection> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > > So I still dont 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On February 23, 2012 at 5:03 PM Nate VanMaren <
> VanMarenNP [at] ldschurch>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Its 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.
> > > >
> > > > Just depends on the needs.
> > > >
> > > > From: bill [at] hitechconnection [mailto:bill [at] hitechconnection]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 2:14 PM
> > > > To: Jason Aarons (AM); Nate VanMaren; Gr
> > > > Cc: cisco-voip [at] puck
> > > > Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010
> for
> > > Voice mail
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On February 17, 2012 at 5:02 PM Nate VanMaren <
> VanMarenNP [at] ldschurch
> > > <mailto:VanMarenNP [at] ldschurch>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Yea there isnt really ports that you have to worry about on the
> SIP
> > > integrations, just max number of calls.
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.agileit.com/Blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=820
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?id=13591
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Gr [mailto:grccie [at] gmail]<mailto:[mailto:grccie [at] gmail]>
>
> > > > > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 3:00 PM
> > > > > To: Jason Aarons (AM); Nate VanMaren
> > > > > Cc: cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010
> for
> > > Voice mail
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks Nate, Jason! Valuable information, I will keep this in
> mind.
> > > > >
> > > > > 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?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > GR
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > > >
> > > > > On 18/02/2012, at 4:35 AM, "Jason Aarons (AM)" <
> > > jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata<mailto:jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata
> > > <mailto:jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata%
> > > 3cmailto:jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata>>> wrote:
> > > > > I think I understand that Exchange 2010 has a crappy sip stack.
> Good
> > > info. <lol>
> > > > >
> > > > > From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:
> > > cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:
> > > cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck%
> > > 3cmailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>> [mailto:
> > > cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]<mailto:[mailto:
> > > cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]><mailto:[mailto:
> > > cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]> On Behalf Of Nate VanMaren
> > > > > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 11:03 AM
> > > > > To: gr11; cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:
> cisco-voip [at] puck
> > > <mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck%3cmailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>>
>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010
> for
> > > Voice mail
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Two things off the top of my head.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Exchange has a crappy sip stack. So you have to use a
> MTP on
> > > the SIP trunk because it wont deal with RTP source/destination
> changes in
> > > a session. Like when someone does a supervised transfer to voicemail.
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Nate
> > > > >
> > > > > From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:
> > > cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:
> > > cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck%
> > > 3cmailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>> [mailto:
> > > cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]<mailto:[mailto:
> > > cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]><mailto:[mailto:
> > > cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck]> On Behalf Of gr11
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:17 PM
> > > > > To: cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck
> > > <mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck%3cmailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>>
>
> > > > > Subject: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for
> > > Voice mail
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi List,
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > GR
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > itevomcid
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cisco-voip mailing list
> > > cisco-voip [at] puck
> > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > keep living the dream
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>


bill at hitechconnection

Feb 27, 2012, 5:47 AM

Post #16 of 16 (3078 views)
Permalink
Re: CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for Voice mail [In reply to]

Thanks for the response. I also think Jabber may be too late or they will
have to start pushing it very heavy to beat out Lync at this point. This
could be even worse if you had a customer that deployed the older version
of CUPC and then tried to compare that to Lync.



I also think the whole sending your voicemail to Nuance is so strange. I
understand what they are trying to accomplish but some organizations will
not want to send that out of their office to be transcribed by a third
party. I wonder if this is on the road map to be implemented locally? Also
isn’t this something you have to pay extra for with Unity Connection where
with Exchange 2010 UM it is “included” in the CAL?






On February 27, 2012 at 8:29 AM "Matt Slaga (AM)"
<matt.slaga [at] dimensiondata> wrote:

> One correction:
>
> Scalability: I've had customers running Exchange UM with 100 ports
simultaneously on a server (100 is the default voicemail port count)
without a single problem. At the same time, I've seen Unity servers have
issues with 40-50 ports at the same time. It all comes down to how it was
installed and implemented. If done correctly, you would not have issues in
either case.
>
> IM Integration:
> Lync 2010 only supports one voicemail platform, and that is, of course,
Exchange UM. I know Jabber is going to be great, but it may be too late
for many companies.
>
>
> Another addition to your list:
> Message transcribing:
> Exchange has a limitation to the number of messages it can transcribe.
Basically, one message can be transcribed per minute per core. If your
server gets more than this, they are not transcribed. They are not put in
a queue either, as this is done after the message is received but before it
is sent to the user. If busy, transcribing is skipped and sent to the
user's inbox. Once it is sent, it will not go back and transcribe later.
>
> However, the only alternative today with Unity Connection is the
transcription service with Nuance where your message is forwarded to Nuance
Corp where it is transcribed and returned back to your system. This means
all messages are transcribed. For security concerns, that could be an
issue, not to mention the ~ 5 minute delay to receive your voicemail
message and of course the per-user licensing costs associated. Hopefully
CUC 9 will resolve this limitation and do it natively.
>
> Thanks!
> Matt
>
>
>
> From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Grant Teague
> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 2:16 PM
> To: bill [at] hitechconnection
> Cc: cisco-voip [at] puck
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for
Voice mail
>
> Hi Bill
>
> Here is 10 reason why Unity CxN over Exchange 2010.
>
> Separate Message Store for Discovery and Compliance Purposes
>
> a. Exchange UM stores email and voicemail on the same server
>
> b. Unity Connection stores voice messages separately from the email
store overcoming legal discoverability concerns
> Enterprise Scalability
>
> a. Exchange UM experiences issues at as low as 40 ports in use per
server (MCS 7845 equivalent)
>
> b. Unity Connection 8.6 scales to 250 ports per server (MCS 7845
equivalent)
> Virtualization Support
>
> a. Microsoft announced support for virtualization in May 2011.
Requires 4 physical processor cores at all times.
>
> b. Unity Connection 8.6 supports virtualization on Cisco UCS, HP,
and IBM platforms
> Environmental Dependencies
>
> a. Exchange UM depends on Active Directory and 3 Exchange server
roles to operate
>
> b. Unity Connection offers optional integrations with Active
Directory and Microsoft Exchange (TTS, calendaring, import contacts)
> High Availability
>
> a. 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)
>
> b. Unity Connection provides 2-server Active/Active clustering
solutions for High Availability
> Architecture
>
> a. Exchange UM supports centralized messaging only, no SRSV-like
functionality. There's no support of networking with 3rd-party voicemail
systems
>
> b. Unity Connection 8.6 supports both centralized and distributed
messaging, SRST, SRSV, and supports networking with other Cisco voicemail
systems and 3rd-party voicemail systems
> Voicemail Interoperability
>
> a. Microsoft Exchange UM does not support networking with 3rd-party
voicemail systems.
>
> b. Cisco Unity Connection supports VPIM networking
> Client Support
>
> a. Exchange UM supports Outlook, OWA, OVA, ASR, Windows Mobile, and
other mobile clients via mp3
>
> b. 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
> Secure Messaging
>
> a. Exchange UM requires Rights Management Service (RMS) for private
messages (additional server, license)
>
> b. Natively supports secure, private messaging and optionally also
securely deletes messages from hard drive
> Calendaring
>
> a. Exchange UM supports calendaring in Exchange 2007 and 2010
>
> b. Unity Connection supports calendaring in Exchange 2003, 2007, and
2010
>
> hope this helps.
>
> regards
>
> Grant
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 1:29 PM,
bill [at] hitechconnection<mailto:bill [at] hitechconnection>
<bill [at] hitechconnection<mailto:bill [at] hitechconnection>> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> On February 23, 2012 at 5:03 PM Nate VanMaren
<VanMarenNP [at] ldschurch<mailto:VanMarenNP [at] ldschurch>> wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> > Just depends on the needs.
> >
> > From: bill [at] hitechconnection<mailto:bill [at] hitechconnection>
[mailto:bill [at] hitechconnection<mailto:bill [at] hitechconnection>]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 2:14 PM
> > To: Jason Aarons (AM); Nate VanMaren; Gr
> > Cc: cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>
> > Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for
Voice mail
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > On February 17, 2012 at 5:02 PM Nate VanMaren
<VanMarenNP [at] ldschurch<mailto:VanMarenNP [at] ldschurch><mailto:VanMarenNP [at] ldschurch<mailto:VanMarenNP [at] ldschurch>>>
wrote:
> >
> > > Yea there isn't really "ports" that you have to worry about on the
SIP integrations, just max number of calls.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > http://www.agileit.com/Blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=820
> > >
> > > http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?id=13591
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Gr
[mailto:grccie [at] gmail<mailto:grccie [at] gmail>]<mailto:[mailto:grccie [at] gmail<mailto:grccie [at] gmail>]>
> > > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 3:00 PM
> > > To: Jason Aarons (AM); Nate VanMaren
> > > Cc:
cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck><mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>>
> > > Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for
Voice mail
> > >
> > > Thanks Nate, Jason! Valuable information, I will keep this in mind.
> > >
> > > 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?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > GR
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > On 18/02/2012, at 4:35 AM, "Jason Aarons (AM)"
<jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata<mailto:jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata><mailto:jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata<mailto:jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata><mailto:jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata<mailto:jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata>%3cmailto:jason.aarons [at] dimensiondata<mailto:3cmailto%3Ajason.aarons [at] dimensiondata>>>>
wrote:
> > > I think I understand that Exchange 2010 has a crappy sip stack. Good
info. <lol>
> > >
> > > From:
cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck><mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck><mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>%3cmailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:3cmailto%3Acisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>>>
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>]<mailto:[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>]><mailto:[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>]>
On Behalf Of Nate VanMaren
> > > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 11:03 AM
> > > To: gr11;
cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck><mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck><mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>%3cmailto:cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:3cmailto%3Acisco-voip [at] puck>>>
> > > Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for
Voice mail
> > >
> > >
> > > Two things off the top of my head.
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > -Nate
> > >
> > > From:
cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck><mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck><mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>%3cmailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:3cmailto%3Acisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>>>
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>]<mailto:[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>]><mailto:[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>]>
On Behalf Of gr11
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:17 PM
> > > To:
cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck><mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck><mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>%3cmailto:cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:3cmailto%3Acisco-voip [at] puck>>>
> > > Subject: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.5 integration with Exchange 2010 for
Voice mail
> > >
> > > Hi List,
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > GR
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > itevomcid
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
>
> --
> keep living the dream

Cisco voip RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.