cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Announcements
Walkthrough Wednesdays
62979
Views
2
Helpful
136
Replies
tammmill
Cisco Employee

Cisco 9900 IP Phone Feature Questions:

So I'm looking at the Data sheets for the 9900 series phones and wonder if you can answer a couple questions for me.

1) Looks like the phone can connect wirelessly instead of wired which is kind of cool, If you have the phone connected wirelessly, can you still use the PC port on the phone to connect a PC (i.e. use the phone to connect a PC that does not have a wireless NIC)?

2) Are there any limitations to the USB Headsets or should it work with "any" USB headset?

3) Am i correct in reading this is a SIP only phone and that it does not do SCCP Support?

4) Power is listed as 802.3af and 802.3at support.  Are there any limitations when using 802.3af instead of 802.3at? I am guessing the USB ports may require the Class 4 PoE?

5) It looks like these are just supported on Communications Manager 7.1(3) or later.  I assume they will work in SRST as well? if so what IOS version / SRST version would be required to support these phones (or does it matter?)

136 REPLIES 136

Hi I am trying to make a video call between two 9951 in a cme 8.6 environment with no success.

I am running cme 8.6 on a 2821 with c2800nm-ipvoice_ivs-mz.151-4.M.bin image.

The phones register with image sip9951.9-1-2 and are abel to call each other. A call from phone A to B is ok for audio. For video, the display on the phone contains a square where the video should be streamed yet I receive no video because the square si black.

voice service voip

allow-connections sip to sip

sip

  bind control source-interface GigabitEthernet0/0

  bind media source-interface GigabitEthernet0/0

  registrar server expires max 600 min 60

!

!        

voice register global

mode cme

source-address 10.1.1.1 port 5060

bandwidth video tias-modifier 1000000 negotiate end-to-end

max-dn 40

max-pool 20

load 9951 sip9951.9-1-2

timezone 26

tftp-path tftp://10.1.1.3

create profile sync 0001746133345006

camera

video   

!

voice register dn  1

number 1001

!        

voice register template  1

!        

voice register pool  1

id mac B8BE.BF9D.C163

type 9951

number 1 dn 1

username silviu password silviu

codec g711ulaw

camera

video 

The output for sh call active video brief is :

Telephony call-legs: 0

SIP call-legs: 2

H323 call-legs: 0

Call agent controlled call-legs: 0

SCCP call-legs: 0

Multicast call-legs: 0

Total call-legs: 2

141A : 308 *10:01:47.384 UTC Wed May 4 2011.1 +1960 pid:40001 Answer 1001 active

dur 00:09:38 tx:12931/2040658 rx:12277/1935859

IP 10.1.1.5:22704 SRTP: off rtt:0ms pl:0/0ms lost:0/0/0 delay:0/0/0ms H264 TextRelay: off

media inactive detected:n media contrl rcvd:n/a timestamp:n/a

long duration call detected:n long duration call duration:n/a timestamp:n/a

141A : 310 *10:01:47.404 UTC Wed May 4 2011.1 +1920 pid:40002 Originate 1002 active

dur 00:09:38 tx:12277/1935859 rx:12931/2040658

IP 10.1.1.6:22704 SRTP: off rtt:0ms pl:0/0ms lost:0/0/0 delay:0/0/0ms H264 TextRelay: off

media inactive detected:n media contrl rcvd:n/a timestamp:n/a

long duration call detected:n long duration call duration:n/a timestamp:n/a

The output for sh call active video compact is:

<callID>  A/O FAX T<sec> Codec       type        Peer Address       IP R<ip>:<udp>

Total call-legs: 2

       308 ANS     T636   H264        VOIP-VIDEO  P1001         10.1.1.5:22704

       310 ORG     T636   H264        VOIP-VIDEO  P1002         10.1.1.6:22704

Any ideas? Is video not supported for 2800?

Thank you.

I'm not sure about the 2800, but if you get a black box on the screen do this;

Power off one of the 9900's and watch the startup, you might get a message that there is not enough power to support the camera. My switch would not provide enough power so I had to get the bricks.

Hope this helps.

Bob James

I have restarted the phones but saw no message. So still I do not know why it wont work!

I have checked with our IP phone experts, and they suggest you visit Cisco's support community or open a ticket with TAC to help solve your problem.

This community does not provide technical support and is not staffed with technical support experts. So, I recommend you post this and future technical support questions to the Cisco SupportCommunity (https://supportforums.cisco.com/index.jspa) where our Cisco technical support experts provide debugging assistance.   Another option is to open a ticket with the Cisco Technical Assistance Center (www.cisco.com/go/support).

We do encourage you to participate in the Cisco Collaboration Community and to also join our Cisco Collaboration User Group program!  In the community, we encourage your discussion/sharing around collaboration topics and Cisco Collaboration Solutions, including business and IT requirements, industry trends, process, culture/organization issues, how collaboration can be used to transform businesses, vendor selection, adoption, training, architecture, licensing, and product features/functionality. If you are a customer or partner, you can also join the user group program to be eligible for member-only events and influence product direction.

We hope to hear from you again.

Kelli Glass

Cisco Collaboration and User Groups Moderator

I'm not sure about the 2800, but if you get a black box on the screen do this;

Power off one of the 9900's and watch the startup, you might get a message that there is not enough power to support the camera. My switch would not provide enough power so I had to get the bricks.

Hope this helps.

Thanks for this Bob, you solved an issue I was having

Michael Boscia
Enthusiast

When will the 99xx series of phones be able to participate in calls with CTS Telepresence devices?

What version of CUCM will be required to support this?

In the same vein, will it be possible for these endpoints to call/be called by devices in the ex-Tandberg portfolio, like E20 and EX60/90?

If multiple users of 99xx devices want to get on a conference call and see each other, what is the MCU for that call flow?

Would I be able to register these devices to a CUCM with a trunk to a VCS-C/VCS-E pair and make a call to an endpoint outside of the enterprise?

So there are lots of questions here. Today for Pt to Pt calls between CTS and other end points such as 99XX, 3rd party you need MXE 5600. One can also use Telepresence server which can bridge all the end points together for MP call. However having everyone join bridge resources to do MP may not be desirable and that's where MXE comes into play. The idea there being is you can dial between CTS and any other video end point like dialing an extension. You can also have CTMS + MXE to handle multi point scenarios outside of the Telepresence server but the TP server has more benefits

With CUCM 8.6, native registration for Tandberg end points is starting with EX and C series. Some caveats still remain (encryption, alphanumeric registration, B2B calling through VCS). So as this evolves we shall start seeing native interworking. Hopefully 8.6 will show updates on what has been tested with CUCM + Codian natively.

Compatibility Matrix for the Cisco MXE Video Interoperability Solution (Cisco MXE 5600 and Cisco MXE-OS)

In this post I have an attachment that shows interop with TP server. For the MXE basically replace TP server with CTMS + MXE to provide both Pt to Pt and MP scenarios

https://communities.cisco.com/message/63824#63824

To your question on just multipoint between 9900, well you can do that in a couple of ways

1) Use Meeting Place (EMS or HMS)

2) Codian MCU

3) Use CTMS + MXE or TP

Thanks

Srini

smizerny
Beginner

Kirk is on the right track with his guidance on the Unified SRST releases that support the 9900 Series Unified IP Phones.

For the full list of supported Unified SRST versions and their associated IOS software releases, please reference the Unified SRST v8.5 data sheet, as this lists all versions up to v8.5.

Link to data sheet.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/voicesw/ps2169/products_data_sheets_list.html

wintechllc
Beginner

Anyone else seeing a CME failure after registering a 9900 series handset to a UC500?

We registerd two 9971s to a UC520 and lost inbound/outbound calling via SIP (nexVortex) and POTS. Didn't see any usual suspects in the config. Restored to post-8.6 backup without 9900s and all is well.

Thanks

Does NexVortex use an Outbound Proxy? If it does then you would need to use the work around documented in the release noes.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/net_mgmt/cisco_configuration_assistant/version3_2_1/release/Notes/cca_3_2_1_relnotes.html

Please let us know if this works. Thanks.

Hi Nalbert,

Thanks for responding. This doesn't appear to be a Jabber issue. This is a complete failure of call handling via SIP and FXO ports. There is no SIP proxy required or configured on this system. We have tested this several times and have compared configs before and after. The 9900 series phone registrations are adding multiple lines of code to the configs. We have tried remarking them selectively with no luck.

When the phones auto-register in CCA they display erroneous MAC addresses and register as CIPC devices. When we register them manually with accurate IP addreses the system fails. The 9900s are able to connect to internal extensions.

This is not fun yet,

Matt

Matt,

Could you please help us by opening a case with our Small business Support center on this?

Matt,

I did notice when i upgraded one of our systems to 8.6 (to support the 9951's) the upgrade said auto registration was no longer supported and disabled it. Have you tried manually adding the phones?

If you still have issues post on the UC500 bard and i will help

Bob James

Hi guys,

I have fallen off of this board, but dont call it a comeback : ) Our 99xx issues became critical to the point that we lost the SIP trunk in one direction. I realize this doesn't make any sense at all, and there were no other changes. We disconnected the phones, restored the config, and everything was fine. We're an SMB partner, so it doesn't look very good when we can't use the phone system. Therefore, we had to pull the handsets and they are still cold. This was nearly a year ago.

We have had an experience  similar to tsgbayarea - and it was not pleasant - but I do want to speak in defense of Cisco and the 8.6 build for UC5xx. Cisco has stood behind us to an extent that I didn't think was possible. We have all been caught in the transition from the web GUI to CCA and that has been brutal at times. So far, the 8.6 build has resolved every recurring issue we have had, and we were a part of the data gathering process that guided some of the fixes on that build.

Mark Krummen, what you are doing is what needs to be done. Please engage the partners out here. What we need are faster resolutions and Cisco's direct involvement. This is not to say managing our client relationships, we do that every day. We need solidarity in the form of your people getting on a conference call to say "Our apologies, we have some issues here that your provider can't resolve without us". Perception is very important on every level. Cisco has a very loyal partner base, and in almost every case the people we support trust us implicitly. If we sell them a product that doesn't perform as advertised it reflects on Cisco...by way of us. Clients don't call Cisco, it's our name and phone number on speed dial. Very thankfully, all of our current clients are happy and saving money over the long run thanks to sweet Cisco-flavored SIP.

We have learned our fair share of lessons the hard way, and some of that has been our failure to research things like 99xx compatibility thoroughly out of the gate. We will be swapping our 520 (one of the first) out for a 560 in the coming months and we will take another crack at the 99xx handsets.

Good luck guys

Content for Community-Ad

Spotlight Awards 2021