CUCM 9 and Microsoft Lync

[coconino1969]

Hello all

A client is asking if they could integrate our CUCM to use Microsoft for voicemail only, Cisco for phones, Microsoft for voice mail.

if anyone could point to a document on this topic I would appreciate it.      

Thanks in advance      

[testeven]

Hi,

You can integrate CUCM to Exchange UM using a SIP trunk. I had a document, let me search for it and I'll unicast it.

Regards, 

Tere. 

If you find this post helpful, please rate!

[islam.kamal · Accepted solution]

Dear

yes , you can . Kindly find the attached file.

Thank you

please rate if this will help

[Aaron Harrison]

Hi

As in the doc above, you basically need a SIP trunk, and some associated configuration (UM Dial Plan etc) on Exchange.

It has absolutely nothing to do with 'Lync'; that's a seperate product to Exchange UM.

Aaron

[islam.kamal]

I have already updated the attached.

[Aaron Harrison]

Hi Islam

I meant that the original poster's request referred to Lync in the title, but what he really wants is Exchange UM integration!

So your first document was correct :-)

Aaron

[islam.kamal]

Anyway , i uploaded with the two documents . Based on his case , he can choose.

Thank you Mr.Aaron

[shikamarunara]

Thank you for correcting me, Aaron.  Sometimes I get Exchange UM and Lync interchanged when I talk about that -- perhaps understandably so?

[Terry Cheema]

The document provided is for CUCM 7. Microsoft officialy supports direct trunk to CUCM 5.1, 6.X, 7.0 and 8.0 (and yes these are exact versions as on technet).

I had done this sometime ago with CUCM 8.5 and exchange 2010 UM and had used third party (NET - Microsoft recommendation) IP gateways for mediation. Microsoft didnot officialy certify CUCM 8.5 for direct SIP Trunk. The reason is, I beleive difference in SIP stack for both Microsoft and Cisco. Although it will work directly as well (which I had labbed at that time) their may be some interoperatability issues.

Since the title suggests CUCM 9, I would recommend doing a complete research before going ahead with a direct SIP trunk.

Implementation wise it is simple. On a high level, you will need to build UM servers if required (which you may not have already if not using unified messaging).You will need a SIP Trunk between CUCM and Microsoft UM servers, directly or through compatible device as per design decision. You will point voicemail hunt pilot to the SIP Trunk. Configure dial plan and mailbox policies on UM to point to mailbox servers where actual voicemail will be stored. On exchange side you enable UM for user mailboxes and on CUCM you create a Voice mail profile and assign to users extension. It worked pretty much well other than, when client's exchange servers were underperforming - Voicemail service would also experience slow response.

You can go to Microsoft technet and search for "Telephone system integration with UM" you will find more information on this.

Let us know if you have further questions.

Terry

Sent from Cisco Technical Support iPad App

[shikamarunara]

Interesting.  Yes, I did find documentation on implementation so that's not really the big concern.  My own personal experience with the Microsoft platforms has not been positive (I'm being polite) and am looking for good reasons to not do it - like certifiability, for example.  And, yes, I've seen this issue you're mentioning regarding differences in SIP between CUCM and Lync (I had to deal with it during integration).

I would be delighted to hear if anyone has had stability or operational issues for this kind of integration for CUCM 8.5 and above - problems with MWI, outages, issues after Microsoft Server patching, etc.

[Terry Cheema]

Operationaly I did not experience any major issues thats worth mentioning. Only noticeable issue, as said above, I encountered was when exchange servers were not performing good, when you would dial into voicemail it would keep on ringing for a while instead of the opening greeting. But again that was not the UM problem that was issue with the Client's Exchange infrastructure. Once they fixed their exchange infrastructure the issue disappeared.

I didn't have that sort of issues reported operationaly. But from design point of view, if you need, I may have a document somewhere that compares the features of CXN 8.0 with exchange UM 2010. If you need for making a case for going with Cisco UnityCXN that may be helpful. But again thats from design point of view, scalability, HA etc.Let me know if you need I will try to find.

I did reply in your original thread as well not sure you didnot see that or posted here by mistake.

Terry

[shikamarunara]

Hi Terry,

     If you can post a link to the document or post it here as an attachment, that would be great.  I've gotten used to the high availability of Cisco Linux platforms and am looking to avoid moving any traditional telecom services over to MS (where outages seem, for some reason, to be more acceptable).

     The life of the telecom engineer in the past 5 years has become maybe more technical and challenging, but for the right reasons.  These days, the challenge in a Cisco telecom engineer's work lies a lot more in the actual programming and implementation and less with bugs.  I'm eager to avoid a situation where telecom slips back into the old days of chronic service disruptions and bug hunts that seem to be prevalent in other platforms.

     Thanks again.

[coconino1969]

Thank you all for the quick reply. My questions are answered .