Licensing Pooling between Unity 5.X and 7.X

Answered Question
Jan 27th, 2009

Is this supported? The UNITY-LIC_POOL part doesn't seem to be an option for either 5.X or 7.X?

I have this problem too.
0 votes
Correct Answer by Tray Stoutmeyer about 7 years 11 months ago

This doc here says it's an option on Unity 7x.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/voicesw/ps6789/ps5745/ps2237/data_sheet_c78-478111.html

And here is one for 5.x

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/voice_ip_comm/unity/5x/networking/guide/ex/5xcunet020e.html#wp1050339

All you have to do is search on Unity 5.x and Unity 7.x license pooling on cisco.com to find it.

Tray

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 5 (1 ratings)
Loading.
Correct Answer
Tray Stoutmeyer Wed, 01/28/2009 - 06:31

This doc here says it's an option on Unity 7x.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/voicesw/ps6789/ps5745/ps2237/data_sheet_c78-478111.html

And here is one for 5.x

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/voice_ip_comm/unity/5x/networking/guide/ex/5xcunet020e.html#wp1050339

All you have to do is search on Unity 5.x and Unity 7.x license pooling on cisco.com to find it.

Tray

Erik Peterson Wed, 01/28/2009 - 07:14

Thanks. The Dynamic Configuration Tool only lists UNITY-LIC-POOL under UNITY-LIC-UPG-4.X. It doesn't appear under UNITY7-LIC-UPG, our inside sales guy is having difficutlty ordering.

paul.higgsboyo@... Sat, 01/09/2010 - 13:05

Hi Erik,

Did you sort this in the end? I have the same situatuion going on next week and having checked Cisco documentation I think that pooling between 5.x and 7.x is supported as long as the servers are in the same Forest,share a corporate directory and are licenced for pooling with digital networking enabled between them. This is the URL for the White Paper concerning licencing:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/voice_ip_comm/unity/white/paper/culicenses.html#wp38770

Let me know if you have got this working and if there are any gotchas I need to look out for.

Thanks,

Paul.

Erik Peterson Sat, 01/09/2010 - 13:12

We did implement it, they were same forest and domain, there were no issues at all.

Actions

This Discussion