cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
6233
Views
2
Helpful
8
Replies

Ask The Experts - Video Infra/MCU Refresh

abdey
Cisco Employee
Cisco Employee

Hello Everyone,

I'm a TME from the Cisco Collaboration team that focuses on Conferencing (TPS, Conductor, TMS, MCU).

You are welcome to post questions on any of the threads mentioned above, or this one, or start a new discussion - your choice.  Experts are standing by to assist.

Cheers,

Abhijit Dey

8 Replies 8

We've got Conductor + Several TP servers.  While Conductor works great for Ad-Hoc or dial-in conferences, "Automatic Connect" and dial-outs from conductor, and general TMS based conferences seem to be lacking.  For this reason we are still using TP Server in locally managed mode, even though it means missing some of the newer features (IX/ multistream etc).

Specifically, a few of the issues we have:
When Conductor dials out (e.g. from a scheuled "Automatic Connect" conference), the callback alias is just the Conductor's IP address, rather than a valid URI.  This is a deal-breaker as users often miss the first call and use the missed call to enter the meeting (we don't use auto-answer sue to security).


When scheduling meetings from TMS, the email template doesn't support the "Numeric ID" variable, it only supports the "SIP URI" variable.  This limits our ability to edit and use the dial-in number as we need to - there's all sorts of scenarios where we want to present just the number as opposed to a SIP URI/link in an email.

Are there any plans to address these issues?  We'd really like to migrate to Conductor but right now we can't afford to lose these features.

The call back alias with the IP address and the CUCM's ability to dial that out is something the CUCM and Infra team is looking into. I dont have an exact dates of when this will be fixed, but I will update this thread when I have some approximate dates.

TMS scheduling via conductor does have an option to have DNs as the scheduled dial in number.

Please refer to the TMS config section in "Video Conferencing Using Cisco Business Edition 6000 CVD - Feb 2015" document at "http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/enterprise/design-zone-collaboration/index.html".

Hi Abhijt thanks for the reply, but I should be clear here that I'm talking about a VCS based deployment, not a CUCM based one.

Most of the development and testing is focussed on CUCM based deployments.

I will check with the test teams to recreate the issue and try to find out a workaround.

The issues on the VCS based deployments wont be a priority to fix.

I would recommend to consider migrating to the CUCM based model and then it would be easy to fix the issues.

We do support all the 3 types of conferencing on CUCM + Conductor + TPS + TMS deployments today.

Any particular reason to stick with the VCS deployment model ?

My understanding is that the URI issue isn't unique to VCS-Based deployments and would happen with CUCM anyway?


The reason we are using VCS is that we have multuiple organisations connecting to shared TPS resources in a DMZ (each organisation has a traversal zone into a VCS-E in the DMZ).  While endpoints may (and probably will) be moved to CUCM, the TP servers would likely stay registered to VCS-E in the DMZ.

In terms of Outlook scheduling, we aren't using the form - just using exchange mailboxes.  This fits our business model better than smart scheduler and aligns well with booking out rooms etc.  Regardless of which, local TP server and MCU both support the "Numeric ID" variable when scheduli9ng via TMS - there's no reason not to support it from Conductor.  That said, this is much less of a deal breaker than the callback number.

Have you guys looked at Smart Scheduler...as the Outlook form has not been changed in some time...

Smart Scheduler, user can define a favorite, with a E164 number, to auto connect....then when scheduling include this as a participant, TMS will then dial out the number at meeting time....this should work with Conductor on VCS or CUCM.

The Outlook form we don't have plans to improve upon, instead focus is on using PT scheduling, with Hybrid...which also should allow for a auto connect with E164 number. Users needing this option can use smart scheduler as alternative to Outlook scheduling.

Hope this helps,

Ron Lewis

Cisco

Hi Abhijt,

Did you ever get an update on the callback alias for Conductor?

abdey
Cisco Employee
Cisco Employee

WE are working on some of the workarounds.

This will be taken as a feature request.

Will update you shortly on when this will be available in the conductor.