topic Re: Unity Connection 2.0 & CM 8.6 in Unified Communications Infrastructure

Unity Connection 2.0 & CM 8.6

Mark Turpin — Tue, 19 Mar 2019 10:52:09 GMT

Is there documentation available that can be shared with customers regarding Connection 2.0 and CM 8.6 compatibility?

PDI Helpdesk indicates it is supported

Customer opened TAC case and TAC told them it wasn't.

Is there a difference for support between SCCP and SIP integrations?

Unity Connection 2.0 & CM 8.6

skilambi — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 16:40:36 GMT

Can TAC point to the documentation that says it is NOT supported? Over here it clearly states it is supported. If this is an error the BU should be fixing it

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/voice_ip_comm/connection/compatibility/matrix/cucsccpmtx.html#wp38791

Cisco Unity Connection 2.x and Later

Any version of Cisco Unity Connection 2.x or later is supported for use with any version of Cisco Unified CM 4.1(3) or later.

Srini

Re: Unity Connection 2.0 & CM 8.6

Mark Turpin — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 17:00:34 GMT

Exactly. When the customer told me TAC told them they had to upgrade and didn't have documentation to support the recommendation I scratched my head.

I have a case open with PDI Helpdesk to try and get a definitive blessing from them and I've asked for the case # from the contact to ping the engineer directly about this recommendation.

I did dig up this tool... the Cisco Unified Communications Compatibility Tool - http://tools.cisco.com/ITDIT/vtgsca/VTGServlet -

It says for CM System 8.6:

Unity Connection

Initial : 8.6.1a

Subsequent: 8.6.1a

However it also says for CM 7.1, Initial 7.1.3.

and for CM 6.1, Initial 2.1(1).....

The customer is running on 7.1.5 right now and there isn't any issue with their integration so I'm not sure I can trust the tool output - or maybe I'm not reading it correctly????

Unity Connection 2.0 & CM 8.6

skilambi — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 17:08:53 GMT

In my mind the tool doesnt do a good job of showing everything out there that's supported. Sometimes Cisco doesnt test older releases and of course we all want our customers to upgrade so they only test with the current releases to "force" customers to move (Golden Bridge testing).

But I agree that in the spirit of pure technical interop(not features/sales/vendor guidance) if it works then support should be extended and should be clearly shown in the interop tool

Srini

Unity Connection 2.0 & CM 8.6

briward — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 20:28:59 GMT

This is a true statement and the documentation is correct.

Any version of Cisco Unity Connection 2.x or later is supported for use with any version of Cisco Unified CM 4.1(3) or later.

Can you forward me the case number? briward@cisco.com

Heath Ward

TME, UCBU

Unity Connection 2.0 & CM 8.6

Mark Turpin — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 21:11:11 GMT

Heath, will do.

Unity Connection 2.0 & CM 8.6

skilambi — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 16:05:01 GMT

Heath

Not to hijack this thread but I would appreciate a response to this thread. I posted for Anil but haven't heard back.

https://communities.cisco.com/message/76436#76436

Srini

Unity Connection 2.0 & CM 8.6

briward — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 21:10:24 GMT

No bug was opened to support the incompatibility raised. The documentation is correct.

Regarding the other query about role based partitioning (multi-tenant?) in Connection, it's on the long-term roadmap to make it native in the application. However, you can do it today with custom made apps or Cisco Provisioning manager I believe has this functionality built in (ability to provision/change based on role per your specific request, outside of what Connection roles are supported today).

Re: Unity Connection 2.0 & CM 8.6

skilambi — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 02:34:27 GMT

Thanks yes I was aware of CUPM or other tools but was hoping of something native to the application or some immediate dates on the roadmap

Not just for multi tenant but other scenarios such as giving IT different levels of access, reset pin compared to messing with other settings and when we do demos giving access to pages that are read only so that no changes are made to the system, stuff that can be accomplished natively in cucm

Thanks

Srini