Does Unity Connection supports +E.164 extensions?

[david.vanherck]

Hi,

Can somebody confirm that Unity Connection supports +E.164 extensions? In example +3227253419 If not, any idea which release is needed?

Greets,

David

[Rob Huffman]

Hi David,

No current CUC versions (including 8.5) support +e.164 natively but it

is still possible Check out these excellent tips!

https://supportforums.cisco.com/docs/DOC-12054

https://supportforums.cisco.com/message/3244083#3244083

https://supportforums.cisco.com/message/3031579#3031579

Cheers!

Rob

[david.vanherck]

Hi Rob,

Thanks for the quick reply! :-)

The alternate extension is doing the trick on the system! :-) I'm able to fill in +32273426181 and it's working!

Greets,

David

[gsidhu]

Next release of Unity Connection (version 8.6) will support full +E164

[david.vanherck]

Thanks for the info! Once release 8.6 of Unity Connection is available, I'll test it lab environment first. If it's supporting +E.164, then we can change the primary extension to + format.

Greets,
David

[gsidhu]

hi Rob

The rating was meant to be a 5 not a 1. Sorry I'll get this sorted. Sorry

[Muthurani Lavanya Paneerselvam]

Rob

Very informative ! My rating is 5!

Regards

Lavanya

[j.sillers]

We tried E.164 in 8.6(1) in our lab before the release notes were out and it is not valid for the Primary Extension, but the + is accepted on alternate extensions, routing rules, MWI, and basicaly everywhere else EXCET the Primary Extension.

A client told me today that the 8.6(2) release does support E.164 on the Primary Extension, but I can't find anything that documents this.

Does anyone know?

[Brad Magnani]

E.164 primary extension support is slated for the 9.0 release according to the product team.  Not sure when this is planned for release.  I'd contact your account team for details.

Brad

[gsidhu]

I tried 8.6(2a). This does not allow Primary Extension to be in +E.164 format so for now it looks like I will need to stick with using the workaround (+E.164 DN as Alternate Extensions). The information I got from Cisco was that this workaround would not be required for version 8.6(1) so this is very dissappointing.

My client will be moving to Unified Messaging. The users have their directory number in +E164 format which matches their directory number in AD.

Has anybody used +E164 numbering for UM on CUC? .....or should I wait for Cisco to release a version for CUC that fully supports +E.164?

[j.sillers]

If your client is doing a rework for UM and going to e164 then I would insert it now into CUC as the alternate extension and use the no + version for the primary. Then when 9.0 comes out and if E164 is finally supported on the primary you can write up a rework project where you use COBRAS to change all the primary extensions on the users. The current version of COBRaS allows for user Id and primary extension changes. We are doing this at several large clients who are moving to CUCM 8.5 and had the budget to do the dialplan rework now.