Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

CCA wiped out several settings

Marcel Tempelman


We set DID-numbers and busy triggers are CUE-Extensions menu but if I change a setting of an Extension in CCA it completely wipes out :

- Secondary number

- huntstop channel
- no huntstop

Even if I change one small thing. Wh does it have to rewrite all Ephone-dn settings and why doesn't it support options which have been around for a long time in CME ?? I think that secondary numbers are a way nicer and neater way to add DID-numbers to an extension. The current method of CCA brings a clutter of extra translation rules (which disappear when changing them on CLI).

The other thing that happened was :

This dialpeer disappered:

dial-peer voice 150 pots
description ** incoming dial peer **
incoming called-number .%
port 0/3/0:15

and this was suddenly there:

dial-peer voice 6 pots
description "catch all dial peer for BRI/PRI"
translation-profile incoming nondialable
incoming called-number .%

voice translation-rule 1000
rule 1 /.*/ //

voice translation-profile nondialable
translate called 1000

If this stayed unnoticed this could become be a serious Toll-fraud issue. Cisco's own anti toll-fraud papers states you have to have a dial-peer like the dial-peer 150. (if needed I can make anothe discussion for this issue).

Found another one:

7915 load statements were gone also.

What did i do ?

- probably clicked something in dialplan so CCA thought I made a change

- added some usernames + password to phones

- clicked on apply.

This is pretty destructive:

- DID didn't work anymore

- Operator consoles were down

- Users weren't seen busy any more with one call on phone.


CCA 2.2.5

SWP : 8.02

6 Replies 6


Welcome to the continuing CCA hell.

I keep telling Cisco- CCA is a setup/build utility but not a maintenance/change utility. Once you start CLI, do NOT go back with CCA unless you want to spend hours looking for what CCA scrwed up.....


Hmmm I haven't really screwed up any CME CLI config with CCP. Why are CCA and CCP on a different track (when looking at options and stability) ?

First, thanks for being Cisco Partners, and sorry for the frustration caused by our portfolio size and scope.

I would say that CCA actually does more for UC500 that CCP is doing for ISR.   The specialization (as you know) is different for UC500 (less) so the GUI HAS to allow for a robust set of functions to be configured easily and repeatable, with no need for CLI.

The focus of the SBTG (small business technology group) in Cisco is to allow Partners systems to be massively scaled and deployed, supporting ALL of the features listed in the Feature Reference Guide (notice the update since 2.2.5 please and reference to CCA 3.0 coming in the fall).

The best way forward is to only use CCA for UC540 / UC560 and then you are completely in your rights to beat us up if it doesnt work, and we will address bugs (always) and accept requests for features to be prioritized according to all Partners needs.  And thanks to all of you for helping the very dedicated team who designs and maintains CCA.  They are a very impressive Engineering team and think you have also seen the changes since CCA 1.x and we also thank you for helping us get to where we are now and where we head next.  I correspond with them daily and visit them from time to time when in San Jose and they are ALWAYS wanting to hear feedback and are a dedicated and focused team

If you have a CLI practice, then CME on ISR is better for you (or UC520 and SmartNet for TAC CLI support).   But we need to understand that CCA cant accomodate out of band CLI combinations (thousands) that are possible that are used to enable features NOT in the feature reference guide.  We kinda are at fault trying to accomodate ANYTHING you can do in CLI but that model cant be sustained.  We have to get to a point where its either all CLI or all CCA and we all may sleep at night :-)

We are all Technical here in this forum, and we enjoy this aspect of our jobs, and we all struggle with this (I do), but it think we get all stoked up in a 'reactive' way sometimes on what really can be prevented if we 'sell what we have with CCA', which is super competitive and when looked at as a whole suite (SBCS) really cant be beat (and I am paid by Cisco, so full disclosure here).

I am not trying to talk anyone into anything here, and I never claim to be smarter than any of you over the time we have collaborated here, and I have learned alot from you, and you may not realize that I (and others) read ALL the posts because we do listen and discuss what you are running into daily.

If you make specific posts on individual threads about specific issues on supported configurations, they will be well received.


Hi Steven,

thanks for your reply. Featurewise the UC is a great package and I could think of a million more features to be added but I'd like to have a stable, foolproof installation first and then a CCA which does handle out-of-band programming better.

Our challenges as partners are:

- predictable installation times for customers and our sales department

Still not possible because during installation we often encountered bugs in CCA. Every bug means delay and we as partners pay those extra hours, not CIsco, not the customer. For example I have spent 2-3 days testing with CCA just to get the right combo for installing the Dutch CUE files. In the end it went well with UC 520s but failed on the UC560 of the client so I have to spend more time on it.

- deliver a easy to maintain system

Not possible because of the need for CLI programming. Often overseen but the standard setup has an US orientation, so we often have to go down to CLI to get it working like we're used to here in The Netherlands. It's great to CCA is getting more and more international and it's no problem for some options having to go into CLI but then CCA has to work around it and not damage it.

We're talking small business here, our customers want an easy interface to do some administration themselves instead of paying us for every change. This is almost impossible with the explosive nature of CCA, the stripped down CUE and I'm still not sure what status Office Manager has but if it has the same config mechaniscs as CCA then it can be just as destructive.

- the ability to create tailormade solutions for our customers.

The UC-platform has many options but our customers often want something which is not completely standard or available in CCA. No problem, they will have to pay extra for the extra time spent on it but if CCA can't work around these options we have a problem.

I've already said it in another post; I can live with half the features if I can have a stable, foolproof and easy to maintain installation.

i thoughts exactly

I am happy to hear we're not the only dealer that has the consistent issues with Cisco mentality -vs- true life small business expectations and challenges.

Getting Started

Find answers to your questions by entering keywords or phrases in the Search bar above. New here? Use these resources to familiarize yourself with the community:

Recognize Your Peers