06-22-2015 07:37 AM - edited 03-18-2019 04:37 AM
I am pleased to announce that TC7.3.3 has been released.
This version contains mainly bug fixes but has also re-named the web-snapshot feature to "Remote Monitoring". To activate this feature in TC7.3.3 an option key is now required. Please read the release notes for more details.
Note: There are currently some issues publishing the release notes at the time of this post, please stay tuned as it will be available in an hour or two. We are sorry for any issues this may cause. I have attached a copy of the release note to this post just in case.
The release notes has been refurbished and will no longer list specific bugs but rather provide a pre-defined bug search in the Cisco bug tool. This gives a better and dynamic overview of open and resolved caveats.
Regards
/Magnus
Solved! Go to Solution.
06-25-2015 09:18 AM
Dave, you beat me too it. I was typing and noticed an email came in that this thread got a new reply.
To clarify to Dave's tip, hardware serial and specific system type description are located in the "General Settings" category.
06-25-2015 09:24 AM
Thanks guys. That was really helpful. And now I found the hardware serial as well... :-)
Cheers
Danny
06-25-2015 09:43 AM
06-25-2015 09:49 AM
Within system overview, there are two columns: endpoints on the left, and system parameters (aka settings) on the right. General settings is in the right column.
06-25-2015 09:49 AM
I thought you were talking the main heading at the top. I updated my first post to add the tab I missed. Thanks for pointing it out.
06-25-2015 09:23 AM
I forgot to mention that the example CSV file is commented out in the bottom of the script.
But I guess you have already figured that out :)
/Magnus
06-28-2015 04:24 AM
Hi Magnus,
Whilst I appreciate you comments, I personally have not seen much public evidence of the reason why the option key was introduced, i.e. "due to a massive pressure from users who did not want their systems subjected to monitoring". The general feeling I have extracted from this fiasco and on-going debate over the past months is that most users have been annoyed, confused, angered and dismayed by the decision.
Compared to some users on this forum, we have a limited number of C and SX devices, perhaps only 60 or 70 units. However, we feel that Cisco has not only lost its way on this particular point, but in general has gone completely doolally. It appears that Cisco are increasingly becoming self absorbed in their own pomposity, and this will lead to alienation of its customer base. This is simply one of an continuing line of inexplicable change decisions, but I can see additional issues proliferate through other arms within Cisco, including core business such as Networking.
Lets face it, what could Cisco have done to appease the "massive pressure from users" in implementing this change to enable de-selection of monitoring? Well, I am going to make an assumption here that this "massive pressure" must have come from a large user/s, and so I will also assume that such large user will have centralised management abilities of these devices, and more than likely will have changed the default passwords on all management interfaces (such as Web/SSH and even local GUI). So, these devices are already protected from general users making changes, and we have the option of adding non-administrative users to the interface. Why an earth then, could Cisco simply not have created a boolean option (such as a tick box) that could only be set by authorised administrators? Would this have been so detrimental to functionality?
I can't fathom it at all, but I think our decision will be in the long term to completely move away from Cisco in this area. I hope that such corporate decisions do not continue and that senior management in Cisco should be directed toward and peruse their own customer feedback on these forums. Perhaps they will then get a sense of perspective and start making better decisions for their customers.
Cheers
Chris
06-24-2015 06:35 AM
There is also a dicussion in the Cisco Community about that topic.
06-24-2015 06:53 AM
It is a gated community!
06-29-2015 05:58 PM
@Magnus
Based on the below, I am sure I am not the only person to express this, but I think Cisco is making a huge mistake with the change to Web Snapshots. I also had the fortune to be part of an EFT and expressed this to product management and sales leadership, but it's fallen on deaf ears. Now Cisco TAC is reaping the whirlwind, and your customers and partners are suffering the consequences of this terrible, nigh on inexcusable decision.
#1: all of your competitors will immediately begin to use this as a lever against Cisco (and us, your partners) in the sales cycle. This is just a fact. It's too easy for them to now make a story about Cisco nickel-and-dime-ing the customer for features that are included in competitor products for free.
#2: Cisco just got done removing Option Key "hell" by making the Dual Display and Premium Resolution option keys free add-ins. This, even at its relatively low cost, is a step backwards.
#3: Inevitably a customer or partner will make a mistake in the ordering process that ends up with this key missed, and there will be customer sat issues as the customer/partner/Cisco account team scramble to place the order and get the key for some important situation.
#4: The customer, and the guise of their system administrators, ultimately control their own environments. If they intend to use this feature, they can (today) turn it on and use it. If they do not, they can (today) turn it off and won't use it. The idea that buying the option key signals "acknowledgement of the functionality and the conscious decision to use" the feature is extremely un-compeling to the point of being laughable. The purchase of the key does not demonstrate a
"Cisco-first leadership in the area of privacy and notification." The idea that this moves the burden of notification to the customer is also ridiculous - that burden was always there to begin with in the form of the EULA.
======
I had an idea that may allow you to finesse the situation somewhat. If the option key became a $0 cost line item, but was not auto-installed at the factory, this would require the "positive confirmation" step of acquiring the option key by way of Cisco's licensing portal, thereby giving Cisco the "out" it desires on the privacy front. Even this is not a perfect solution and ends up with some annoyance for customers and partners retrieving the key and putting it into the endpoint, but it's better than what we have today from both an installed base and new endpoint perspective.
I shared this idea with Tom Richards and Finn Helge Lunde at a Partner Advisory Board but obviously the ship has sailed.
But Cisco can still "do the right thing" here and at least move to the middle ground of a $0 auto-included but not pre-installed key. It doesn't even require a change to the software, just changes in your licensing back end to generate the keys, and a change to CCW.
Please do the right thing here.
07-27-2015 10:57 AM
I have been trying for over a month to get keys for this. Email, TAC cases, Customer Service Central.
Its said how difficult they make this.
07-27-2015 05:12 PM
I submitted my request for keys through our Cisco AM in the vain hope this would speed up the process, he just past it on to Licensing - that was 3 weeks ago and silence is deafening. :(
Pleased to say it's all sorted - nice to know Cisco reps are keeping an eye on this thread. :)
/jens
07-27-2015 05:12 PM
Hey Jens,
I'd suggest logging the job again, but directly with TAC (and do it in the the afternoon your time, so it goes to India instead of Mexico as it does if logged in the morning). I've had all mine back within 24 hours doing it this way.
Wayne
--
Please remember to rate responses and to mark your question as answered if appropriate.
Please remember to mark helpful responses and to set your question as answered if appropriate.
07-28-2015 03:23 PM
One of the Technical Leaders from UC TAC got in touch after he saw my post and got it all sorted for me - got all the keys and started to apply them, so far so good. :)
Interesting to note going internally through the Cisco AM doesn't speed things up, at least not in this case.
/jens
07-30-2015 06:14 AM
Tried a TAC case again with the suggestion of listing L-TP-RM license in the notes, so I put it all over the ticket in multiple location and had keys in about 4 hours. Can't wait to try it again.
Discover and save your favorite ideas. Come back to expert answers, step-by-step guides, recent topics, and more.
New here? Get started with these tips. How to use Community New member guide