Microsoft Unified Messaging/ Cisco CM Integration

Unanswered Question
Oct 16th, 2008

I am looking for feedback on using Microsoft UM as the voice mail hanging off a Cisco CM cluster.

Some questions:

First, who's using Microsoft UM and what has the experience been?

What are your mailbox ID's - do they match the format of your dial plan or are you using E.164 as the format of the mailbox ID's?

Is there anybody that would be willing to have a brief conference call to discuss their experience/findings with Exchange UM.

Thanks

I have this problem too.
0 votes
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 0 (0 ratings)
Loading.
testeven Thu, 10/16/2008 - 12:19

Hi!

Personally I haven't used this integration, but is should work if you configure a SIP trunk from the CUCM to the MS UM. You should check the MTP required box in the trunks to translate DTMF from SIP to SCCP so the phone understands it.

I did not find any documentation on this, but hope this helps a bit hehe.

a.gooding Thu, 10/16/2008 - 18:42

ive just completed a "pilot" for one of my microsoft customers to evaluate the system. its a little tough to compete if the customer only requires basic features. ive done up a document that kind of, and i mean kind of, does a comparision between the two. you can email me and ill send it across.

from my standpoint, i find it hard to justify going UNITY if the customer has an enterprise agreement with Microsoft, meaning, costwise i think its hard to sell. MWI is an issue but there is a workaround for this using another application, the AA is cool for basic stuff but we didnt evaluate this in depth. the voice recognition is ok as well, not the best but then voice rec is always in development. id say that altough my customer has already put Exchange 2007 in production, he still feels comfortable with the Maturity of UNITY and thats my best shot, therefore, i am to demo UNITY 5 for them and hope that the outcome is good.

im sure that there would be a lot more posts about this and im hoping that i can also learn so i can be a little more prepared when facing the customer.

Note: the integration is very easy. we did notice that it took a while for things to settle in but once it did, the system worked properly.

also, as i mentioned , the MWI also doesnt work without using the 3rd party, but thier argument was that

1. they still get the message in their mailbox

2. everyone has blackberry

so lack of MWI didnt really concern them.

hope this didnt confuse even more

ranpierce Fri, 10/17/2008 - 10:25

We have had this discussion before on a different forum.

OK so I worked at ActiveVoice the company that developed Cisco Unity (as well as many people on this list} Cisco aquired AV and from what I hear is that some of the developers that Cisco didn't keep on or left later went to Microsoft and are doing VM with 2007.

The best are still with Cisco and are on this list. I see them often.

The fact is Exchange 2007 is featureless in comparison to Cisco Unity. You pay for what you get.

My .02

Randy Pierce

http://forums.cisco.com/eforum/servlet/NetProf?page=netprof&type=Subscriptions&loc=.2cc1172b/0&forum=Unified%20Communications%20and%20Video&topic=Unified%20Communications%20Applications

DougVogel Fri, 10/17/2008 - 10:33

I appreciate all the feedback.. in my case, the train is already on the tracks. We are only doing a pilot, nobody expects Microsoft UM to be close to the functionality of Unity. Most are ok with this. Given all this, I'm looking for some direct feedback on those that have dipped their feet in the Microsoft UM water.

Thanks

ranpierce Fri, 10/17/2008 - 10:40

:-) you will come across this again in the future.

MS vs The world.

Cisco vs The world

and sometimes their paths cross.

Randy

Actions

This Discussion