ASK THE EXPERT - CCIE VOICE

Unanswered Question
Feb 9th, 2007

Welcome to the Cisco Networking Professionals Ask the Expert conversation. This is an opportunity to get an update on CCIE Voice from Cisco expert Ben Ng. Ben is a customer support engineer with the CCIE program at Cisco Systems, Inc., where he proctors and manages exam content for the CCIE Voice track. Prior to joining the CCIE program, Ben worked in Cisco's Technical Assistance Center (TAC) where he provided technical and escalation support to Cisco customers on WAN, LAN switching, Multi-Service, and IP Communications technologies. Ben is CCIE certified in Routing & Switching and Voice.

Remember to use the rating system to let Ben know if you have received an adequate response.

Ben might not be able to answer each question due to the volume expected during this event. Our moderators will post many of the unanswered questions in other discussion forums shortly after the event. This event lasts through February 23, 2007. Visit this forum often to view responses to your questions and the questions of other community members.

I have this problem too.
0 votes
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 4.7 (25 ratings)
Loading.
sabuz_banik Mon, 02/12/2007 - 01:38

Hi

Its me sabuz, working in Cisco environment since three years.Dear i need to sit for the exam (Cisco Foundation Express Field specialist 642-381).I was badly looking for study guide metarials and help for this exam but not geting any positive response.I will be very much happy if u can give me some guidelines and information about study materials and all.and alsoplz inform me if there any one that u know who has allready pass thus exam.

With best regards

Sabuz Banik

Bangladesh

benng Mon, 02/12/2007 - 11:31

Greetings Sabuz,

Unfortunately I would not be able to offer you much help as our topic of discussion is on preparing and sitting for the CCIE Voice exams.

I hope this URL will offer you some direction on locating course guidelines and study topic information for the Foundation Express Field Specialist information.

http://www.cisco.com/web/learning/le3/current_exams/642-381.html#examtop

Thanks,

-ben

netkrish80 Tue, 02/13/2007 - 02:48

Hi Ben,

I am preparing for the ccie voice track.

Please tell me some valuable inputs for both the theory exam and lab exam.

I am following the material which i used for ccvp track for my theory exam. I am not confident in ccme and cue and ipcc express. how important is these topics for thoery exams.

some time back beta exam was launched. is that now become the regular exam.

Krishna.

benng Tue, 02/13/2007 - 13:49

Greetings Krishna,

Whether it's the CCIE written or lab exam, the best place to start is the exam blueprints, where we outline the major topics of these exams:

Writtn exam blueprint is here:

http://www.cisco.com/web/learning/le3/ccie/voice/wr_beta_exam_blueprint.html

Lab exam blueprint is here:

http://www.cisco.com/web/learning/le3/ccie/voice/lab_exam_blueprint.html

While the blueprint is not an all-inclusive list, it does contain most of the core technical topics which are very important for any IP Communications engineer.

It's great to know that you've done the CCVP track and I would say that the CCIE written exam is similar in technical width but deeper in technical depth.

Regarding the various subjects such as CCME/CUE and IPCC Express, since these are estalished topics of the written exam blueprint, it will be important for you to have both theoretical and practical knowledge in these technologies.

Preparation efforts for the lab exam will be more demanding than the written exam, simply because in the lab you are expected to demonstrate your working knowledge with hands-on configuration and troubleshooting. As a result, I would certainly advise you to gain practice time on voice gateways and voice application servers, and so on.

Lastly, yes, the CCIE Voice beta (v2.0) is now a regular written exam with exam ID of 350-030.

Hope it helps and I wish you best of luck in your pursue of the CCIE Voice certification.

-ben

csco11063007 Wed, 02/21/2007 - 06:27

Hi Ben,

I am Tom Sebastian.I facing a problem ..

Hi expert,

Our customer is in Dubai.They have E1 pri line ,it terminating on cisco voice gateway (2800 series).They are recieving calls properly from US,INDIA,..etc but they are not recieving call from GCC countries .But the customer can call all of these coutries and any where in the world.I double chekked with ISP ,they came and checked that the call is coming properly .They told after going to Gateway only its getting problem.

The calling party says ,they heard tone line one long beep (2 sec) and then short beeps(like busy).ISP says its getting some Fax noises.

(note:all these calling party countries having 0096.. ISD code).We have DID servise subscribed from ISP

The debug of failed incoming call from 96633588888 (Soudi ARABIA number) to 0097172058032 is included

Incoming callare routed to CCM using voip dialpeer.

call manager version 4.2

gateway H323

i am posing the debugs

"debug isdn q931 " and "debug voice dialpeer all"

please throw some light for solve this

thanks

Tom Sebastian

csco11063007 Wed, 02/21/2007 - 06:10

Hi expert,

Our customer is in Dubai.They have E1 pri line ,it terminating on cisco voice gateway (2800 series).They are recieving calls properly from US,INDIA,..etc but they are not recieving call from GCC countries .But the customer can call all of these coutries and any where in the world.I double chekked with ISP ,they came and checked that the call is coming properly .They told after going to Gateway only its getting problem.

The calling party says ,they heard tone line one long beep (2 sec) and then short beeps(like busy).ISP says its getting some Fax noises.

(note:all these calling party countries having 0096.. ISD code).We have DID servise subscribed from ISP

The debug of failed incoming call from 96633588888 (Soudi ARABIA number) to 0097172058032 is included

Incoming callare routed to CCM using voip dialpeer.

call manager version 4.2

gateway H323

i am posing the debugs

"debug isdn q931 " and "debug voice dialpeer all"

please throw some light for solve this

thanks for reading this issue

Tom

m-haddad Tue, 02/13/2007 - 08:49

Hello Ben,

First thanks for this opportunity. I have a CME and I will use the B-ACD script built in. However, I don't have any queue. I want the script to play the welcome prompt and then directly ask the user for the extension he wants to dial. Is this doable?

Another question would be is there any tool that we can use to design TCL scripts such as the CRA Editor?

Thanks,

benng Tue, 02/13/2007 - 14:24

Greetings Mohamad,

Thanks for your participation and it's my pleasure to host this session.

I will go ahead and try to answer your questions, however, for additional technical discussion on CCME, I would recommend you take advantage of the technical IP Communications forums on NetPro.

It seems to me that the Auto-Attendant (AA) application will serve your needs. Please refer to configuration examples here:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/voicesw/ps4625/products_configuration_guide_chapter09186a00805f2305.html

If you have tcl knowledge, you can edit and customize the pre-packeged TCL scripts such as B-ACD and AA, however, please bear in mind that Cisco TAC does not offer support to any alterd TCL scripts. There are, however, developer support program (which is fee-based) that supports our customers who wish to customize their TCL scripts. They can be reached at [email protected] or here: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/svcs/ps3034/ps5408/ps5418/serv_home.html

Just to link this post to the topic of our forum, lots of people inquired about the possibility of B-ACD in the CCIE Voice lab, and answer is yes.

-ben

m-haddad Wed, 02/14/2007 - 08:48

Hello ben,

I appreciate your feedback.

Will let you know if I have anything further to ask,

Regards,

ibrahimsiddiqui Tue, 02/13/2007 - 12:38

Hi Ben

Hope you are doing great I would like to know one thing regarding IP Contact Center Enhanced

Is that possible scripts and recordings that we can import in IP Contact Ceneter Express 4.0 which were previously using in IP Contact Center Enhanced 3.1(1) without any compatibility and other major issue

Looking forward to hear from you.

Regards

Ibrahim Javed

benng Tue, 02/13/2007 - 14:55

Greetings Ibrahim,

I am doing great thank you.

I will go ahead and take a shot at your technical question but for further inquiries beyond the scope of CCIE Voice, please try the "Contact Center" forum under "Unified Communications and Video" in NetPro forum.

I believe IPCC Express 4.x does offer script conversion service once it detects pre 4.0 scripts. It is my understanding that the conversion does not alter the scripts' functionality, however, names of some steps and variables might be modified to adjust to the newer version.

Again, I recommend you to ping the experts looking after the the "Contact Center" forum under "Unified Communications and Video" in NetPro forum, to validate my suggestions.

Thanks again.

-ben

benng Wed, 02/14/2007 - 08:46

Hi Imad,

You can expect to see NM-HDV for now. As we grow and build new labs, it becomes very likely that we will encounter End-of-Sale on certain older modules. In those cases, we will order the replacement modules of the older parts. Therefore, it is possible in the future that we will have a mixture of NM-DHV and NM-HDV2 in the lab.

An example of this is the analog FXS/FXO VIC cards, we currently have a mixture of VIC and VIC2 in the lab.

Version of QoS SRND is 3.3, please refer to this URL for a link:

http://www.cisco.com/iam/unified/ipt1/Using_SRND_Documents.htm

Yes, auto-qos is allowed in the lab. We used prohibit the usage of this feature, however, the retriction is lifted more than a year ago because it is indeed a useful feature for our customers. With that being said, I recommend you to use auto-qos to asssit you to establish a baseline QoS configuration, then read the lab question requirements carefully to make sure you customize or edit the configs to meet the specific requirements.

Hope it helps and thanks for your participation.

-ben

benng Wed, 02/14/2007 - 14:17

Hi Imad,

Yes, you can use auto-registration.

-ben

Justin Pascal Wed, 02/14/2007 - 22:29

Hi Ben,

First of all, thank you for this session.

I was checking the CCIE Lab equipment page, and I would like to know which phone models we expect to see in the lab. And if VTA is included for the Lab?

Thanks again.

Jayd000007 Thu, 02/15/2007 - 07:06

Hi ben,

Can you please approx tell me for how long the Version of the Callmanager tested is 4.1, how long will it remain so and when to expect 4.2,5.0 or 5.1 to be tested. Same about Unity Version.

Thank you.

Ben,

Thanks alot Ben and here are a few more quries about the lab:

1. Can you please elaborate on how the lab is graded? Is it automatic or is it done by an actual local proctor.

2. On the Lab Exam Blueprint I see MGCP listed under the voice gateway section. Are we allowed to use the ccm-config command if we were asked to configure mgcp to guaranty that most of the mgcp commands get pushed to the router from CCM?

3. On CME what is the recommended method of configuring conference resources. Is it in hardware through DSP or software under the telephony-service or both?

4. Is IPMA proxy method still a testable subject? I read on CCO which says that this method is a legacy method and the preferred one now is the shared line method

Thanks a lot,

Imad

benng Thu, 02/15/2007 - 09:56

Hi Imad,

The lab is graded manually by proctors testing calls and verifying configurations. The grading proctor, however, is not necessarily local to the lab equipment.

Yes, ccm-config command usage has always been permitted.

CCME conference resource should be both hardware or software.

Yes, IPMA proxy is still a valid subject in the test.

Hope it helps.

-ben

benng Thu, 02/15/2007 - 13:46

Hi Imad,

There are multiple solutions in place to allow administrators to remotely control physical phones. So this can be done - I will leave it as this. :-)

Thanks for the good and valid questions.

-ben

fred.s.mollenkopf Wed, 02/21/2007 - 13:20

Ben,

I haven't actually ever used the Hardware conferencing on the CME, always the Telephony-service command 'max-conference'. If you use this on CME does it abide by the HW max conference participants or the CME max participants? Also do you still use the max-conference command in tandem with the hardware? This is something I would ask in the general forum and understand if you cannot answer in the lab forum.

Thanks in advance

Fred

benng Wed, 02/21/2007 - 23:03

Hi Fred,

Sorry I missed this one earlier.

I believe the max-conference command is for software-based, 3-party, g711 conference only. It is independent of the hardware conference which is configured via the sdspfarm commands.

I also advise you to validate my take and I will do likewise.

Thanks,

-ben

fred.s.mollenkopf Thu, 02/22/2007 - 07:31

Ben

Cool, I understand that, and that is typically what I use. I guess what I was asking is if you use the HW conference farm on CME, what mandates the max-participants, software (3 or more?) or hardware limit of 6 on the HDV(similiar to the max ad-hoc conference participants service parameter in CCM). I went ahead and checked my lab and on the CME version I'm running, 3.3, there is only SDSPFARM commands for transcoding not conferencing (of course that doesn't mean it isnt supported just not needed for conferencing). Or maybe later CME supported? I will look into this for later CME code.

I was unaware of the HW conference capability on CME but have used it for years on CCM. Sorry to keep on this thread but I can't seem to find a document link on configuring HW conferencing for CME.

Thanks for the reply

Fred

benng Thu, 02/22/2007 - 12:59

Hi Fred,

I believe CCME HW conference is for CCME version 4.1 only.

For the rest monitoring this thread as I am receiving multiple pings, this is a new feature only available in the most recent CCME version, therefore is not applicable to the CCME version running in the lab, which is version 3.3

Regardless, thanks for the follow-up and sharing of the information.

-ben

fred.s.mollenkopf Thu, 02/22/2007 - 14:20

Ben,

Thanks, this is still much appreciated. Even though I'm studying for the Lab, I actually had a customer complaining about the limited 3 party conferencing yesterday on CME. They will be happy to hear 4.1 should resolve this issue. I will research this and hopefully get them upgraded. Luckily they are already running 4.0 (should be a simple upgrade) and our Verizon rep sold them DSPs in the router that aren't being used.

Thanks

Fred

Ben,

For what I have found, you are not able to use DSP for conference on CME. You can configure trasncoders that you can use in a G729 conference, but the CME will not allow you to register conference.

If you go to telephony-service, sdspfarm, you only see an option for the Transcoder.

I am not sure about the latest version, but at least in the one used in the exam and also according to the Cisco IP Communication Express book from cisco press, you can no register DSP for conference.

Juan

benng Thu, 02/22/2007 - 13:02

Hi Juan,

This is for CCME version 4.1 only, and does not apply to version used in the CCIE Voice lab.

-ben

benng Wed, 02/21/2007 - 23:10

hi Imad,

Please see my response to Fred's question above - that the max-conference command is for software, 3-parties, g711 only conference, and this command is not related to the configuration of the hardware conference resources using the sdspfarm command.

Again, that's my initial understanding and pending validation.

-ben

benng Thu, 02/15/2007 - 09:51

Hi Jay,

Currently we have CCM 4.1(3) and Unity 4.0(5). These versions will remain in the lab at least for the remainder of 2007.

The next upgrade path is currently under review, sorry I could not conclusively tell you which version is next at this point in time. However, we will always try our best to announce software upgrades or hardware additions at least 6 months prior to the actual event take place in the lab.

Hope it helps,

-ben

benng Thu, 02/15/2007 - 09:44

Greetings Justin,

You're welcome, I always enjoy learning and sharing information on NetPro forum.

Currently, we use 7960 IP phones, ATA 186 analog adapters, and generic analog phones and fax machines.

And no, there is not VTA in the lab.

Thanks,

-ben

johnnylingo Thu, 02/15/2007 - 10:56

Hi Ben,

I was wondering for the lab's IPCC portion, will the JTAPI provider and triggers be pre-configured, or will those have to be setup? What about applications?

Also, can voice monitoring / recording questions be expected?

benng Thu, 02/15/2007 - 11:00

Greetings John,

Jtapi provider and triggers are not preconfigured - so candidates set them up. Same with applications.

Yes, voice monitoring and recording is a fair game.

Hope it hopes,

-ben

Hi Ben,

If we want to send a FB/FNA to a CUE mailbox how many dial-peers is needed. I read somewhere that we must use two dial-peers to overcome a bug. One with session target pointing to the actual VM pilot extension (4 digits for exampl) and another pointing to the ten/seven digit PSTN number. Is this true.

Thanks,

Imad

benng Thu, 02/15/2007 - 13:49

Hello again Imad,

I encourage you to validate what you have read by testing the possible workarounds. I can comment that there is a software defect on CCME/CUE integration, and there are multiple ways of working around it.

If you could share your finding with those monitoring this session, that would be even better.

Thanks,

-ben

benng Fri, 02/16/2007 - 09:27

Hi Imad,

Thank you for taking the efforts.

Yes, we are running 12.4 mainline which is still impacted by this defect. Therefore beware of it and its workarounds, which are relatively well documented in the URLs posted by you.

The take-way is that any software versions we select to run in our production lab is not defect-free. We always try our best to make sure our lab exercise is not impacted by any defects to begin with.

However, if there is a defect which we could not avoid because it impacts basic functionality, then the CCIE content development team have some choices to make:

1. If there are no workarounds within the same version, we will have to pull the version.

2. If workaround exists, we evaluate the complexity and feasibility of the workaround. If the workaround too complex or no applicable to implement in our lab, then we will pull the version.

3. If the workaround is easy to discover and implement, then we see it as a good validation of candidate's troubleshooting skills. In this particular case, a simple debug would reveal the fault of the IOS and hopefully lead to a workaround.

If I was a customer encountering this problem in my production IPC network, I would prefer my voice engineer to identify the fault, come up with workarounds (if any)so I can be up and running again, and then make upgrade suggestions.

With that being said, the impact and implication of each defect is different. When drafting test contents, we also take into account that candidates in the lab are under time and workload constrains, so it's never our intention to give candidates a lab full of defects. However, we do see the value of occasional usage of known and workaroundable defects to validate candidate's troubleshooting skills and understanding of the technology, not to mention assement the non-technical skills such as maintaining calm in a stressful environment.

Lastly, let me see if I could rate your post for sharing the information with the rest of us. :-)

-ben

I have a general question that depending upon where I look or who I ask I am getting different answers. I currently have a Cisco VOIP solution with Call Manager Express. We are moving to Call Manager in a few months. In the interim, I need to have a way for customers to call in and be placed in a "hold queue" until the next available person can answer. Is this possible?

keeptry Thu, 02/15/2007 - 21:20

Hi Ben,

Fisrt of all, thnak you so much for give us this valuable QnA sesseion. You are the man!!!

I was wondering what is the current IOS version for the all gateways in the lab.

Thanks,

Young

benng Fri, 02/16/2007 - 09:31

Hi Young,

You are welcome. I am glad to have this opportunity.

The IOS gateways are running 12.4(5b) in the voice labs.

-ben

keeptry Fri, 02/16/2007 - 10:23

Thanks, Ben.

One more thing, if some features are not supported by that IOS version 12.4(5b), is it possible to upgrade the IOS during the lab session?

Thanks again,

Young

benng Fri, 02/16/2007 - 10:34

Hi Young,

You're welcome.

If any feature is not supported by 12.4(5b), you should not expected to see it in the lab exam.

We generally avoid including IOS upgrade as part of our lab exercise. And, any unsolicited requests to upgrade IOS during the course of your lab exam will very likely be denied.

Hope it helps.

-ben

ellis_b Thu, 02/15/2007 - 21:40

Ben,

How come the voice written exam has a passing score of 60% vs. 70% like the other written exams?

thanks,

Brad Ellis

CCIE#5796 (R&S / Security)

CCSI#30482

Network Learning Inc - A Cisco Sponsored Organization (SO)

YES! We take Cisco Learning credits!

[email protected]

www.ccbootcamp.com (Cisco Training and Advanced Technology Rental Racks)

www.routerie.com (Routing and Switching Forums)

www.securityie.com (Security Forums)

www.voiceie.com (Voice Forums)

Voice: 702-968-5100

FAX: 702-446-8012

Jayd000007 Fri, 02/16/2007 - 06:01

Hi ben,

are there plan to include the IPCC Enterprise version in the lab for the next years?

benng Fri, 02/16/2007 - 09:45

Hi Jay,

Not yet.

Since IPCC Enterprise is a highly specialized product that involves in depth customization scripting skills and more, I am interested in your thoughts on the possible placement of IPCC Exterprise under the existing Expert Certification umbrella, or does it warrant something of its own?

Therefore I would like to take this opportunity to poll the rest of you on it, what do you think?

**Disclaimer: My comments above is purely hypothetical and is my personal opinion only.

-ben

jarsenault Mon, 02/19/2007 - 06:04

IMHO I think there is enough IPCC out there (both Express and Enterprise) to justify a new CCIE track, CCIE Call Center...

John Arsenault

CCIE# 15269

Actions

This Discussion