Software pack upgrade on UC520

[fbeaudoin]

Is it supported to do upgrade accross VPN connection?

I have many uc500 remote site to upgrade, what is the best way to do it remotely if not supported with vpn?

I tried it and fail at second step : backup of configuration and data

Thanks

[mcasimirc63]

You can't do it remotely using CCA.  CCA needs to be locally installed and you would need to be there to click off on certain options.  You would need to use CLI to do it remotely but it will take quite some time if you have not already prepared tftp statements.

[paolo bevilacqua]

But, one can have CCA on a local PC, and remote desktip / VNC / logmein into it.

[mcasimirc63]

Of course you can but doing a major upgrade with no one onsite is a disaster waiting to happen.  A disaster that I have seen a couple SMB partners go through.

[David Trad]

Hi Francis,

Doing a major SWP upgrade over VPN is tantamount to tight rope walking, even if you install it on a local computer and do it that way you are still playing Russian roulette, not mention CCA was not designed to do that due to the NIC arrangement as well.

You would be better of going to site and doing it that way, you should be charging clients for your time to do it as well which covers the cost of going onsite, I understand that doing it remotely would be more efficient, YES but not for major upgrades where over 100 different things can go wrong and cost you way more money that what it was worth trying to save.

Just a though

Cheers,

David.

[paolo bevilacqua]

Really ?!?

I have some tens of remote systems in different continents and regularly update them without any issue. The approach is actually not different from other Cisco products, where the same  is done since some 25 years.

Find pecualiar in the Internet era, one has to be local to update a small phone system.

[mcasimirc63]

There is a difference in skill level between you, a CCIE and a select partner who is not even supported by CLI.  The UC500 space has a majority of select partners. 

[paolo bevilacqua]

So that is kind of saying, since most dealers have no skills (thing that I don't think is always true), they are not entitled to use powerful tool, effective methods, and best practices.

Instead I think that Cisco should empower Partners and Customers to the maximum extent possible, to deliver success and win-win situations.

[David Trad]

Hi Paolo,

I really have to say it, but you may be better of in the netpro (ISR) forums I dont think you are quite understanding the problems you could be causing when enforcing your CLI policy/opinion.

This is not a CLI based forum, this is a CCA/SMB/SBSC forum and like the rest of us we endeavor to provide support within the scope of Small Business Support which is 90% Select Certified Partners who may or may not have UC-Express certifications (both individual & company).

I am not sure if you fully understand what damage you could do to a partner when pushing your opinion of CLI only configuration, you will put the partner out of both CCA & SBSC scope and thus render them unsupported, please be mindful of this.

If you are unable to provide CCA support can it not be possible for you to then offer the CLI support when the direction of the conversation heads that way or a Cisco Rep has approved for that direction? You are one of the communities longest serving supporters, you of all people I would have thought would know what boundary's not to cross..

Please consider the above in the future

Cheers,

David.

[paolo bevilacqua]

David,

few times I've read a more inappropriate post than your above. And I'm sorry to say that, because I had appreciated your contributions many times here. Unfortunatly, you appears to do better on a purely technical aspect rather than on the forum relationship one.

Anyway:

1. I did not mention any CLI or CCA in most thread, while in this one I suggested a CCA-based solution. I'm afraid that is you that have a fixation on the matter, to the point of posting a thread that then gained zero answers.
2. Fact are facts, let me state them and people to judge by themselves.
3. Regarding damages done to others, I've lost you totally here. I still have to see someone being damaged (heaven forbids) by my actions, professionally, or on this forum.

In conclusion, in the future please just let me be, as you're not in a positions to place yourself above anybody else.

Then of course I will be delighted to see actual Cisco moderators to remove debate-stirring, non-technical posts like your above, and/or any of mine.

As always, my friendly cheers to the anonymous low raters that won't be missing. So sorry they are to shy to voice their opinion ?

[mcasimirc63]

I would have to agree with David on this issue.

As always, my friendly cheers to the anonymous low raters that won't be missing. So sorry they are to shy to voice their opinion ?

Seems quite odd that you would jump from 100 points to 150 points in a weeks time by only answering a couple questions and getting random 5 stars, for old posts like this one... hmm...