07-04-2015 01:17 PM - edited 03-18-2019 04:41 AM
07-04-2015 10:58 PM
All depends on your current deployment and/or requirements, this article might be of help: http://blog.globalknowledge.com/technology/unified-communications/the-role-of-cisco-unified-communications-manager-in-video-conferencing/
/jens
Please rate replies and mark question(s) as "answered" if applicable.
07-08-2015 12:31 PM
I think we still need VCS to do firewall traversal, when it is required to talk to outside world across firewalls . Looks like CUCM is not yet capable of doing that function ( to be an in-path device for media stream to support NAT function and media stream multiplexing).
-Nick.
07-09-2015 12:21 AM
In a pure CUCM environment, the "VCS" isn't needed for the firewall traversal or MRA functionality. In this case, you use the "Expressway-Core" and "Expressway-Edge" products (which are effectively cut down VCSes with a different licencing model).
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.
07-09-2015 12:51 PM
07-09-2015 06:36 PM
Expressway-Core and Expressway-Edge, similar to the VCS-Control and VCS-Expressaway can all run as Virtual Machines, so, depending where you put them within your environment, they may not necessarily require additional hardware.
The reason to not use the VCSes in a new deployment is that they are not going to be a long term solution as they are being discontinued and as Cisco want you to migrate all Video devices to the CUCM platform gong forward.
Have a look at some of the roadmap documents which all indicate the demise of VCS and everything being CUCM based in the future. Here's one example (Pages 17-19):
http://www.cisco.com/web/HR/ciscoconnect/2014/pdfs/telepresence_infrastructure_update_aleksandar_vulovic.pdf
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.
07-09-2015 07:28 PM
Again, IMO, it all depends on current deployment and future requirements - I wouldn't even look at Cisco, or Polycom for that matter, unless there was a compelling reason to do so.
We don't have a CUCM, nor will we ever get one as we don't have Cisco VoIP (we use Avaya), we're not on a Cisco network (now rolling out Juniper), nor are we interested in a Cisco UC solution, but what we are doing is actively looking at replacing our Cisco telepresence infrastructure with Pexip - as others are also doing. :)
/jens
Please rate replies and mark question(s) as "answered" if applicable.
07-13-2015 06:02 PM
Agreed. But for a brand new installation, as much as I hate to say it as I love the VCS platform, it's probably not worth making a significant investment in a new VCS based installation.
We're in a similar position to you, with no CUCM currently (and another vendor's VoIP solution for Telephony which is out of our control), but we're investigating putting in a "video-only CUCM" to migrate all our Video Endpoints to to keep up with CIsco's changing direction.
We've also dabbled a bit with Pexip, and use that as our way to call out to external, software only endpoints (ie Skype for Desktop) which we were pushed to do after Cisco cancelled their www.ciscojabbervideo.com service without a suitable replacement.
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.
07-14-2015 09:35 AM
We're a VCS only organization, but recently purchased CUCM, and will be used for video only. Later down the road it might expand to voice if the need arises.
Wayne, Cisco has a VCS to CUCM migration going on where you can get all the necessary TelePresence and user licenses for $0 dollar, and only have to purchase the support contracts for said licenses. CUCM licenses are based on the number of TelePresence endpoints and Jabber Video licenses in your VCS environment. Migration offer ends July 31st. We saved upwards to $70k+ on the cost of not having to pay for the actual licenses, while we paid less than $15k just for the support contracts of those licenses.
07-14-2015 02:47 PM
We were offered the migration from JabberVideo to Jabber, which included a free CUCM, but there's absolutely no appetite nor need for a CUCM nor Jabber here, so that won't happen.
If it was up to me, we would roll out Pexip to all staff and students tomorrow, and kiss Cisco goodbye, but it has to go through the appropriate/required processes for funding purposes, so guess we're in for a bit of a wait. :(
/jens
07-05-2015 10:29 PM
The VCS way dates back to the good old TANDBERG days, and is the way things were done in the past. Cisco has announced that the future direction is to have all devices using CUCM, so, if you're installing a completely new set of infrastucuture, the CUCM route would be the suggested way to go (much to the disappointment of those of us who are big fans of the TANDBERG way).
Further product development will only be occurring in CUCM and VCS will transition to a legacy product (although still partly used with CUCM as Expressway-Core and Expressway-Edge).
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.
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