locked
RCC error when using shared line appearances RRS feed

  • Question

  • Hi all,

    I have an OCS Ent pool integrated with Cisco CUPS 6.01 and Cisco CallManager 5.1. I have RCC enabled for most users and it it's working really well. There's one hitch, though: if a user has 3 phones with his/her extension on it, I can't ever get the OC client to log in and make the connection to CUPS. I get the "Phone system integration error - cannot connect to the phone system". I've tried this with multiple users and multiple different phones. It's always when the 3rd phone is added to the mix that the error happens.

     

    As soon as I remove the extension from one of the user's phones, I can log in to the OC client and have RCC working great.

     

    The strangest part of all is that the SIP logs show a bunch of 401/unauthorized error. It's kinda misleading because obviously the OCS server's authroization is just fine for the user when i have only 2 phones with the ext. I'm thinking that it is a problem with CUPS and CallManager not liking the 3 phone setup, but I'm not positive.

     

    Anyone seen this / have any ideas?

     

    Thanks,

    Matt

     

    Thursday, December 20, 2007 6:43 PM

Answers

  • Ok - I have this fixed now. There is a way to handle an OC logging in w/ RCC enabled and having his/her extension on more than 2 devices! I had to open a TAC case to get the answer.

     

    In the user config in OCS, the Line URI field has to be filled out like this:

     

    tel:1234;phone-context=dialstring;device=SEP001DFFFFFF 

     

    (or whatever the MAC of your PRIMARY phone is)

     

    This way, when you log into communicator, it will always know to control that phone for you.

     

    It's not very elegant, but it works.

     

    Regards,

    Matt

    Friday, December 21, 2007 10:06 PM

All replies

  • More info on this... I've been able to use a CUPS Client (not OCS, but the actual Cisco CUPC client) and it works just fine with the user who has his ext. on 3 different phones. So it's not CUPS and CCM that is broken. And because I can have the MOC user log when it's just 2 phone, OCS isn't broken. It's gotta be the nature of the integration itself.

     

    I was reading the integration doc (not really super helpful) and it has this to say:

     

    "Shared Lines: There are potential unwanted interactions that may occur in shared line scenarios. The CUP procedure for selecting the

    device to be controlled by MOC is to login the MOC session. Upon sign-in, both devices associated with shared line will ring and the

    MOC user must answer the phone the user wishes to control. The unwanted feature interaction in this case include conflict in device

    and call control and indefinite ringing in cases where the user is away from both devices. This issue is also applicable for devices

    subscribed to extension mobility where selection of device to control procedures is similar to shared lines."

     

     

    And this may be the issue: with the OCS CallManager rings both of the phones that you have associated with your user so it knows which one you want to remotely control: You pick up the one that you want MOC to control.

     

    It seems to me that the mechanism in CallManager that rings your phones upon MOC login is only capable of doing 2 phones.

     

    I'm pretty sure it's a bug/limitation in the integration, but not a bug w/ CUPS or OCS themselves.

     

    Regards,

    Matt

     

    Thursday, December 20, 2007 10:58 PM
  • Ok - I have this fixed now. There is a way to handle an OC logging in w/ RCC enabled and having his/her extension on more than 2 devices! I had to open a TAC case to get the answer.

     

    In the user config in OCS, the Line URI field has to be filled out like this:

     

    tel:1234;phone-context=dialstring;device=SEP001DFFFFFF 

     

    (or whatever the MAC of your PRIMARY phone is)

     

    This way, when you log into communicator, it will always know to control that phone for you.

     

    It's not very elegant, but it works.

     

    Regards,

    Matt

    Friday, December 21, 2007 10:06 PM