I have the following scenario: multiple sites and different extensions. Some users may have the same extension but on different partition.
Jabber v. 9.1.3
Configure to use EDI (global catalog). Multi tenant active directory. Each site has its own AD, but all are under the main one.
User 1A, ext 100 on SiteA Partition (telephonenumber on AD_SiteA is 100)
User2A, ext 200 on SiteA Partition
User1B, ext 100 on SiteB Partition (telephonenumber on AD_SiteB is 100)
Problem: User1A calls User2A. On User2A Jabber appears User1B instead of User2A.
Is there any way to handle this behavior?
Note that we didn’t have this problem with CUPC 8.6.
I'm not sure how you handled this in CUPC - can you elaborate?
You say you are using the GC - the GC will contain all users (you say the domains are 'under the main one' by which I presume you mean it's all a single domain tree in a single forest). It will contain both user user 1A and 1B, and both will have a phone number of 100. In that scenario JfW won't be able to tell the difference as they both have the same number.
You could configure JfW on each site to point at the local DC (not GC) and it would then only return results for that domain. Also you'd need multiple jabber-config files which is a PITA.
I think the main problem is that you have an odd setup. You have a 'multitenant' setup, but a single AD forest containing those tenants - which implies they are related. You have overlapping numbers, but have selected a directory design that doesn't enable you to deal effectively with it.
I was wrong that I didn’t have this problem with CUPC. I have to use CUPC a long time ago. I reinstall it and verify that the same problem exists. Sorry about that.
Unfortunately this is the environment I have. The only solution to the problem is to change the telephone number field on AD for all users into something unique. All users have public numbers so I can use this one. Jabber now displays the correct Name.
The only problems are that I am loosing the 1 window for both IM and Audio-Video control, and that the photo for the caller is not display on the called. But I believe these are minor issues instead of displaying the wrong caller.