locked
Dual call forking CUCM 7.01 RRS feed

All replies

  • Hi,

     

    Nice doco. How does OC Sactually have the ability for Simultaneous ring? I assume that this is something that needs to be enabled on the PBX?

     

    Regards

    Anesh

     

    Thursday, December 4, 2008 2:48 PM
  • OCS supports Simultaneous Ringing but the document probably talks about the config on the PBX

    This is a srappy work arround to similate Dual Forking-like features but totally differnent from technology perspective

     

     

    Thursday, December 4, 2008 6:24 PM
  • Hi,

    We have tested this and managed to get (well a dual forking look-alike) it working. From a user perspective there is not difference from the dual forking experience.
    What actaully happens is using extension mobility (actually mis-using the feature) to enable the simultanous ring. Not actually dual forking under the cover but it does not really matter as the user experience is the same.
    Important note is that this does only works for OCS 2007 and not for OCS R2.

    Thanks
    Anesh
    Anesh
    Monday, March 16, 2009 3:35 PM
  • I'm trying to set this up for R2 but u say that it does not work?
    So a simple question, why not?
    And how do i do to get it working ;)

    Regards
    Tommy
    Friday, March 27, 2009 11:19 AM
  • Hi Tommy,

    I have done a similar setup with CUCM 6.1 and OCS R2 and it worked. Only difference was CUCM 6.1 doesnt support the "+" so I used 88# to route the calls to OCS which was stripped before sending the pattern to our OCS trunk.

    Cheers
    Chris
    http://voipnorm.blogspot.com/
    Friday, March 27, 2009 3:07 PM
  • FYI, you can strip the '+' from outgoing calls in OCS when working with phone systems that don't like to see full E.164 normalized dial strings:
    http://blogs.technet.com/ucspotting/archive/2009/02/28/removeplusfromrequesturi-or-how-to-make-ocs-non-rfc-3966-compliant.aspx


    Jeff Schertz, PointBridge | MVP | MCITP: Enterprise Messaging | MCTS: OCS
    Monday, March 30, 2009 12:02 PM
    Moderator
  • Hi,

    I wonder if I use that cisco pdf, do I also need another product of cisco (Cisco Unified Mobility http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/voicesw/ps6788/vcallcon/ps6567/product_data_sheet0900aecd80410f2d.html) to implement simultaneous ring? Because pdf says: "The remote destination feature uses the Cisco Unified Mobility functionality".

    We are using CUCM 6.1.2.1000 and OCS 2007 R2. (I know, that pdf is for CUCM 7.01, but VoIPNorm wrote, that this is possible with 6.1). We did everything according to that pdf, but only IP phone is ringing (no packets are coming to mediation server).
    However we can call from Cisco IP phone "Destination number" directly (it is configured in CUCM "Remote Destination" configuration) and communicator can take the call.

    Any ideas?
    Thursday, April 23, 2009 1:36 PM
  • Hi,

    I like to know if Cisco Communications Manager 7.0 is supporting Static registrations? If yes you could simply add a static registration at every user account (you want to provide DUAL-Forking) which should look like this:

    sip:+123456789@mediationserver.domain.com;transport=tcp

    The workaround "mis-using" the mobility extensions seems very odd. This will disable the feature for the user,or am I am wrong?

    The reason I asked about static registrations is, cause I know one solution which does support it and works fine with OCS R1 and R2! It is called pbxnsip (E2K7-UM certified ip-pbx for Windows, Linux, MAC,.. -not another asterisk distribution :) ) With this the mobility features still can be used.

    If interested please have a look at this wiki article:

    Basic Setup for pbxnsip / Office Communications Server 2007 Interoperability OCS

    As you might notice, in comparison to the Cisco the pbxnsip configuration is less complicated.

    Regards,
    Jan

    Jan Boguslawski | Consultant IT Infrastructure | MCSE, MCTS OCS | ITaCS Berlin | www.itacs.de
    • Edited by Jan Boguslawski Tuesday, August 18, 2009 12:42 PM wiki link changed to kiwi
    Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:31 PM
  • Hi Mazhas,

    If you have CUCM 6.1 you can do the same things as 7.0 functionally but a little differently setup wise. I am pretty sure the 7.0 docs speaks about the use of the + sign which you can’t do in 6.1. Instead of that use a pattern rarely used (eg 88#) to prepend on to the remote destination number and route that out your SIP trunk to OCS stripping the prepended digits. Cisco built what used to be mobility manager into CUCM in 6.x so no need for more servers but you will require a license to use the mobility functionality, something I am sure the document neglects to mention.

    Setting up mobility in CUCM can be a bit tricky. I suggest get it working to a cellphone first and check and doubel check your Calling Search Spaces are setup right.


    Cheers
    Chris
    http://voipnorm.blogspot.com/
    Thursday, April 23, 2009 8:56 PM
  • Hi Chris,

    We tried for another phones/users and it worked :) It is strange, because all settings are the same for problematic phone/user.
    Anyway - in this scenario no possibility to call from communicator client to cisco phone (that was enabled for simultaneous ring)?

    Mazhas
    Friday, April 24, 2009 10:35 AM
  • Hi Mazhas,

    Not sure what you mean by your question. If I were to take a guess I think your refering to the reverse if someone calls your communicator direct the phone will no longer ring. If that is waht you mean you are correct. THis isnt dual call forking where this would indeed be possible.
    http://voipnorm.blogspot.com/
    Friday, April 24, 2009 3:34 PM
  • Hi,

    We did a "ping-pong" workaround when communicator sends the call to cisco even when the number is local OCS number. Now cisco phone is ringing and also transfers the call back to OCS. We did the following:
    1. Created normalization rule for outgoing calls to add fake digit +370# ---> +9370# (now number is not treated as local and call is transfered to CUCM)
    2. Created Translation pattern in CUCM to ring ip phone 9370XXXXXXXX ---> XXXX
    3. IP phone rings.  Because mobility (simultaneuos ring) is enabled in CUCM call is transfered back to OCS - we can take a call either from computer or phone and we can place calls from computer or phone.

    If some users do not have phones (uses only Communicator) then dial plan and normalization rule must be set accordingly - no need to send calls to CUCM.

    Mazhas
    • Edited by Mindaugas P Tuesday, April 28, 2009 5:21 AM
    Monday, April 27, 2009 12:08 PM
  • Hi Mazhas,

    Interesting concept. The only issue I can see for you is if the trunk to CUCM fails even your internal calls will fail. Along with using twice the bandwidth and consuming CUCM MTP resourcse even for internal OCS calls you are also consuming your mediation resourse for internal calls. Mobility feature in CUCM is nothing more than a fancy call forward or hairpinning so hopefully your need for this function is low as I could see you having issues if this is a large deployment.

    Cheers
    Chris
    http://voipnorm.blogspot.com/
    Monday, May 4, 2009 3:49 PM
  • Hi, I agree with you - our deployment is ~150 users, so performance it is not a problem. Of course the best solution is a supported dual-forking with RCC.
    Other bad things: If you take the call by using the phone and communicator is ringinging - you get a missed call in the Outlook inbox. Besides if you take a call by phone, you  will not see presence information ("In a call"). Cisco uses 4 licenses for this feature.

    By the way, we see strange behavior when calling from phone that was not configured for simultaneous ring -  Communticator does not resolve caller name (it shows the number after normalization rules).
    Is there any way to disable rules for incoming calls and use them only for outgoing?
    On the location profile normalization rules if I tick "Use translation when dialing from device" then rule applies for both incoming and outgoing?
    If the incoming call number matches the first rule it then should apply it and stop? (Because in our experience it looks like it applies all matching rules)

    Mazhas
    Tuesday, May 5, 2009 6:47 AM