Phones with mismached loads

[Cameron Whitehead]

We are looking at this report and unsure why all these are showing up here?  All the phones seem to have the correct load so not sure why they think they are mismatched.

[sanjaydevan]

The mismatch is because of phone internal error. Load ID is the one what you referred in Device Defaults in CUCM. When the phone is not able to load due to some error it takes the default one that you are seeing in Active Load ID. 

Regards

Devan

Please rate useful posts...

[Cameron Whitehead]

That is the odd thing.  The new firmware is what we want to use and that is what we have put in Device Defaults so not sure why the older firmware is still showing up in this report.

[Jonathan Schulenberg]

You may want to try clearing the ITL from one of the phones and seeing if it then upgrades. If the ITL is broken, the phone wouldn't accept the XML config file telling it to install a newer version.

http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/voice-unified-communications/unified-communications-manager-callmanager/116232-technote-sbd-00.html

[Mohammed al Baqari]

There is a mismatch between the actual firmware running on the phones and the firmware configured in your device defaults.

Looking at the load IDs it seems that your phones are running newer firmware than the one configured in your device defaults.

You need to look at downgrade path as downgrading from newer version to older one isn't straight forward supported.

[bvanbenschoten]

Does anyone know for sure that if a phone has a load specified at the device level (different than the device defaults)  but the running code matches the device specified code, does it get flagged as a 'mis-matched load' ?