Short Audio drops with CUE

Unanswered Question

We received a UC520-32U-8FXO a few weeks ago, upgraded it to 8.0 and configured and deployed it.


We're running into random audio drops when connected to CUE. I.E. Listening to an auto-attendant, listening to the voicemail prompts, listening to voicmails. The drops are only for a half of a second or so (but noticable and annoying). This can happen once or twice during a session.


It almost seems as if there is some sort of hiccup between CME and CUE.


I DO NOT think this happens with voice calls in CME. I think it's directly related to CUE.


Any suggestions? I noticed that someone posted a similar issue over at uc500.com (with no replies). http://uc500.com/en/call-breakup-when-voicemail-0


Waiting for contracts to register to see if TAC has any ideas. Thought I should ask here first to see if there is an obvious fix.


Thanks!

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 5 (3 ratings)
Loading.
John Platts Sun, 12/27/2009 - 19:36

I have not actually seen this problem exactly as you described. We have used CUE 3.0, 3.2, and 7.0 on the UC520 out in the field, and have not heard about the problem exactly as described here.


I do know of one problem, which can occur with the UC520 4.2.x software packs and Cisco Unity Express 3.x. What will happen in this problem is that voicemail will get cut off after approximately 30 seconds. The workaround is to be sure that voice-class source interface Loopback0 is present in your CUE AA and voicemail dial peers.


Sample CUE dial peer configuration for UC500:

dial-peer voice 2000 voip
  description ** cue voicemail pilot number **

!

! Destination pattern must be specified on the CUE dial peer

!
  destination-pattern 299

!

! CUE dial peers must have b2bua configured

!
  b2bua

!

! This line should be present if you are using a UC520 or UC540.

!

voice-class source interface Loopback0

!

! The SIP protocol must be specified on a CUE dial peer.

!
  session protocol sipv2

!

! The session target must be set to the CUE IP address. The default CUE

! IP address is 10.1.10.1, unless you have overridden it in CLI.

!
  session target ipv4:10.1.10.1

! sip-notify must be used for DTMF relay for CUE dial peers
  dtmf-relay sip-notify

!

! The G.711 mu-law codec is the only codec supported by Cisco

! Unity Express. You must specify it in all of the CUE dial peers.

! The UC520, UC540, and UC560 can transcode G.711 A-law,

! G.729, G.722, and iLBC calls to G.711 mu-law if needed.

!
  codec g711ulaw

!

! Voice Activity Detection (VAD) must be disabled on all of the

! CUE dial peers.

!
  no vad


Specifying voice-class source interface Loopback0 on your CUE dial peers might solve your problem.


Here is an example codec negotiation and transcoding configuration:

!

! Codec preferences used for external SIP calls

!

voice class codec 1

! Should use g729r8 if G.729 is used
codec preference 1 g729r8

!

! Do not specify g729br8 if G.729 Annex B is not supported by

! your SIP provider.

!

!

! G.711 mu-law should be specified if G.711 is used for SIP phone calls.

!
codec preference 2 g711ulaw

!
  !
  ! G.711 A-law should be specified if G.711 is used for phone calls,

! and your SIP provider supports G.711 A-law.

!
codec preference 3 g711alaw
!

!

sccp local Loopback0
sccp ccm 10.2.24.1 identifier 1 version 4.1
sccp
!
sccp ccm group 1
associate ccm 1 priority 1
associate profile 3 register mtp123412341234
!

! Here is an example transcoding profile for a UC520.

! I have included iLBC and G.722 in the example, even

! those these do not need to be specified if these

! codecs are not used.

!

dspfarm profile 3 transcode universal

! The g711ulaw, g711alaw, g729ar8, and g729abr8 codecs

! need to be listed in the transcoding profile.
codec g711ulaw
codec g711alaw
codec g729ar8
codec g729abr8

! ilbc needs to be listed in the transcoding profile if the iLBC

! codec is used. Otherwise, it can be omitted from the transcoding

! profile.

codec ilbc

! g722-64 needs to be listed in the transcoding profile if the G.722

! codec is used. Otherwise, it can be omitted from the transcoding

! profile.

codec g722-64
maximum sessions 2
associate application SCCP

!

telephony-service
sdspfarm units 3
sdspfarm transcode sessions 8
sdspfarm unregister force
sdspfarm tag 3 mtp123412341234
!

jchadkramer Mon, 03/01/2010 - 20:00

I am having the exact same problem with A 32 user UC 520. In the AA or voicemail prompts etc. there is frequently a lag. It does not happen during calls however. Any suggestions?

In the end we fixed it. The TAC sent us a new unit and we could reproduce the error when we restored our backup to the new unit.


It's a bug with that version of the UC520 packaged firmware/CUE OS Our unit was a 32 user as well.


You need to download the latest CUE update. NOT the one that's "pre-packaged" for the UC520, but the actual CUE software upgrade. Use the latest one.


Try this, and give the TAC a call if necessary, they should be able to help.


What helped us was to upgrade to the latest version then I think we set everything up from scratch (don't restore your backup to the upgraded system, do it from scratch).


This fixed it 100%.


If you still have issues, reply here and I'll send you our tac case # to reference.


-Cody

jchadkramer Tue, 03/02/2010 - 06:36

I was hoping to avoid any kind of rebuilding. Would you mind posting the TAC case number so I can contact them. Thanks a lot for your posts.

Steven DiStefano Tue, 03/02/2010 - 14:34

Partners,

no one should try to use the firmware for ISR CUE with UC 500 CUE. This hasn't been tested and can cause unexpected outage (if it works).

Cisco would recommend that the partner uses CUE software bundled in the software pack. The engineering test team had earlier indicated that they noticed voice quality issue with a new install for the first 5-6 calls, but it was our understanding the issue goes away with subsequent calls   We are reengageing this team to follow up.


The current 7.1.3 version of CUE (in the 8-0-0 and 8-0-1 bundle) is what we support today until 8.0.x release of CUE has been completely tested with UC 500. We cant commit on availability dates here but it is probably a couple months out.

https://www.myciscocommunity.com/docs/DOC-10361


Open cases for this and we can track them this way.


Steve

Good point. If I recall correctly, the latest UC500 package was removed from the download site due to the errors we were able to demonstrate to the TAC.


As per the TAC, we're running the latest ISR CUE image to resolve our issues which made our UC500 unusable due to the constant audio cut outs on the CUE.


Note: We this didn't affect our CME.

jchadkramer Tue, 03/02/2010 - 17:47

So I see there is a new release 8.0.1(or something) from the 26th. Any thoughts about whether that would fix the problem or start new ones? I guess I should wait a bit and see if anyone has problems with it.  I usually let a release be out for a little while before upgrading. I put this system in Mid December and it has done this since day 1.

stacy.thompson Wed, 03/17/2010 - 14:58

We are also having short audio drops on UC540's CUE. I have two UC540 8U boxes that seem to drop for one second in the middle of messages, prompts, menu options, etc on CUE.  We have already upgraded to the version of CUE in the 8.0.1 with no resolution.


I've read through the posts, and I think I am hearing that we need another version of CUE that will have these bug fixes? and there is no ETA on that?


Please advise as I have cranky customers...


Stacy

Marcos Hernandez Sat, 03/20/2010 - 08:36

Hi Stacy,


We do not support the 8.0 CUE version for UC500 yet. Have you verified that this audio drops are not related to problems with the PSTN caller leaving the message? Do the also happen for internal-only voicemail?


Thanks,


Marcos

jchadkramer Sat, 03/20/2010 - 08:44

My issues are all internal related to the CUE. All of the drops are when the CUE is playing a prompt or playing back a message. Voice quality on an external conversation is fine with no drops.

Marcos Hernandez Sat, 03/20/2010 - 08:48

OK, then as Steve mentioned, you are hitting that problem identified in 7.1.3, and which we are working out right now.


Thanks,


Marcos

jchadkramer Sat, 03/20/2010 - 09:06

I am eagerly awaiting the fix. It sure will be nice when the customer complaints about it stop. :)

stacy.thompson Mon, 03/22/2010 - 09:54

I am sorry to confuse- we are using the 8.0.1 software pack from Cisco for a UC540 (I beleive it is CUE 7.0.)

I have STAC case# 613942923 open and they ran some dbugs on me leaving a voicemail. Not sure how that will help, but that's what they did.


Is STAC and the BU on the same page about hwat to do for this issee?


Stacy

Saurabh Verma Mon, 03/22/2010 - 11:19

Hi Stacy,


8.0.X software pack bundles CUE image 7.1.3. The engineering team has identified the issue reported and is working on getting this fixed. One option (for UC 520) could be to roll back the CUE software to 7.0.3. For UC 540, we will need to wait for engineering to come up with a fix. I don't have a concrete timeline for the fix, but it should be available in 2-3 weeks.


Thanks,

Saurabh

Steven DiStefano Tue, 04/06/2010 - 13:47

Yes.  There are very frequent 'tiger team' calls with SBSC (STAC) and the BU on urget or frequently reported issues are discussed.

I didnt look at your particular case, but it was probably to isolate the problem as the one thats now 'known' or not.

BTW, it (this issue in this thread) became 'known' to many of us through this community.

Several Partners reported the same and then it was isolated & validated.

I heard it once or twice myself, and found it annoying and not what we expect from Cisco, but honestly didnt think much of it.


8.0.1 and 8.0.2 bundle zips have the same CUE 7.1.3, so both may see the problem, which has been characterized as audio delays (not drops) in voice mail and greetings both.  Some even noticed 'motor boating', where the voice mail speeds up and then slows again.


The 8.0.3 bundle zip will have the newer CUE (right now its called 7.1.6) and several of us are actually participating in testing 7.1.6 standalone in our labs as we speak to assist where we can.


Solution test has the ultimate authority to say when it can be released, and the BU technical leaders are considering a plan to make it available as soon as possible.


Steve

Steven DiStefano Tue, 04/06/2010 - 14:47

If anyone is experiencing this issue running 8.0.2 bundle zip, and cannot wait for the official release of the 8.0.3 bundle zip, which will include at least the corrected CUE (version 7.1.6), and you want to install CUE 7.1.6 ASAP, CCA 2.2.2 will support this via the SW Upgrade menu, where you can select just the CUE package.

CUE_Upgrade.GIF

CUE_Upgrade_success.GIF


This has been verified and tested.  But this will require special handling and you must have a case open to get access to the code.  It may also require signing a beta agreement.


Please contact the SBSC (UC540/UC560) or TAC (UC520) if you would like to go this route.

Steven DiStefano Thu, 04/15/2010 - 11:25

Stacy,

Wish I couldnt, but we are not allowed to 'promise' dates.

I can tell you that it is the next one :-)


Seriously though, if you have issues with Audio on CUE, we can get you the 7.1.6 CUE in the mean time....  just have to open a case and escalate it.


Sorry cant give the date.

Steve

dprzywara Tue, 04/06/2010 - 06:48

Hey guys, I'm having the same problem with some customers.  Please add me to whatever list there is to notify when the fix is released.  Thanks!

Steven DiStefano Tue, 04/06/2010 - 06:55

CUE 7.1.6 has the fix and now its a matter of testing it (almost done I heard last night) and verifying CCA 2.2.2 can upgrade a system onto it.


Stay tuned.

Dan Smith Sat, 04/17/2010 - 08:25

We have tried the upgrade 4 times and it has failed on the image upload every time. we extracted the .zip file and select the cue-main file. it gets to image upload and fails. not sure what the issue is, no other ftp or tftp software on machine. I also noticed in CCA 2.2(2) there is a voicemail upgrade option below the software upgrade option, would this be useful?

Marcos Hernandez Sun, 04/18/2010 - 07:58

Dan, the proper way to proceed here is open a TAC case and have them walk you through the upgrade procedure.


Marcos

Steven DiStefano Fri, 04/30/2010 - 21:46

I heard 8.0.3 is being put together and tested, but have no dates.

For anyone that feel like this condition is not tolerable, you can open the case and get the CUE 7.1.6.


Sorry for no new news yet...


Clarification (5/3):



The Software Pack 8.0.3 will contain CUE 7.1.6, not 8.x.  Early Adopter Software Pack 8.1.x will contain CUE 8.x


Message was edited by: Steve DiStefano

MICHAEL JOHNSON Tue, 05/04/2010 - 21:59

It would be nice if the "escalation" group provided some real support on this problem. This is a PROBLEM. Not just something that is intolerable. This product is on software pack 8.0 but is still having major quality problems.


Is there anyone out there that has a client that finds this acceptable?

jchadkramer Wed, 05/05/2010 - 11:35

I have been patiently waiting for the latest software pack(8.0.0.3....) to be released with the fix also. Having been burned by this platform repeatedly, I am not willing to install anything on this platform until it has been properly tested. Luckily I only have 1 of these in the field to worry about. I think it is smart to not pressure the engineers to release something before they are ready, otherwise it will cause bigger problems.

MICHAEL JOHNSON Wed, 05/05/2010 - 11:53

I too have been burned by bad phones (525G), early adopter issues, UCC issues, under resourced UC520 platform, this CUE bug and even poor support from the SBCS team. Yes, the SBCS team will spin it however they want, but having someone hold for a couple hours to hear a response that the case is escalated and the SBCS team cannot help is just another mile of scourced earth.


I really wonder if anyone is making money putting these things in if they were true to accounting for internal time spent....


I'll keep you posted. I have an open case to load the CUE fix, but CCA won't install the pkg file. Of cource the escalation team "had no problem" in the lab. We'll see. I submitted all the failure logs, sho tech etc. an hour ago...and still waiting....


I fully understand your position...

stacy.thompson Wed, 05/05/2010 - 14:03

finalconnect,

We feel your pain.  We've suffered through the poor quality issues with product and poor support with STAC. We've been reassured by Cisco that they hear us and are working to correct all our pains.  Are you a member of the SBEE ?



Cisco/Steve, 

Is this CUE 7.1.3 an issue across all UC's- UC520 (seen posted) UC540 (I am experiencing on 2 boxes) and UC560's? ( I think I have a UC560 with this issue now.)


And since the UC540 and 560 are so new, we cannot downgrade to a previous CUE...and I have a hard time justifiying two service calls to correct the issue with the EA 7.1.6 CUE.   1st call load EA 7.1.6  2nd call load full versions.  Although weighing that with the piling complaints and frustration from our customers, we may have to. 


This issue has been on Cisco's radar for a while now, I am hoping we should at least get an ETA on when the 8.0.3 pack will be out for UC520, 540 and 560...


Thank you,

Stacy

Marc Bresniker Wed, 05/05/2010 - 15:48
Hi Stacey, with regards to the Software pack question, the next UC500 SW pack, 8.0.3 will go through testing with CCA's next maintenance release. That is currently targeted for the July timeframe.
stacy.thompson Thu, 05/06/2010 - 07:13

I am embarassed to tell our customer that. I am embarassed to explain how I need to come out twice to fix this issue now.


If you need a visual of how this makes us feel- look at my picture.


Thank you for at least giving us an ETA.  Any chance that timeframe could be pushed up since the dealers are being beat up out here ?


Stacy

Marcos Hernandez Thu, 05/06/2010 - 07:16

Stacy, you can    open a TAC case and have them share an engineering build and aid you in the upgrade and installation process.

stacy.thompson Thu, 05/06/2010 - 07:19

Is an engineering build EA? or something that I will need to change/upgrade later for the customer? 


I'm trying to avoid that if I can since I am unable to bill the client for the "fix".


Stacy

glanders Thu, 05/06/2010 - 07:42

Let me chime in a bit to pull this together...not sure if it will help :)


It's clearly frustrating (for all of us) when there is a 'bug' in any of the code, it creates extra work for everyone and frustration for our partners. In MOST cases there will be a supported workaround available. These 'fixes' are then incorporated into the standard release cycles. For SBCS these are the bundles. This is probably a little over simplified, but the general approach. This allows us to get fixes out quickly, keep major versions close to a standard schedule, implement a standard test methodology and not produce 100 'standard versions' which a customer may believe they need to upgrade to every week. As you know, most bugs effects small numbers of users with specific configurations.


Anyway a bit of framework for this. As Marcos mentioned, there is a supported fix available TODAY and it will also be incorporated in the next mainline release.


Certainly feel free to contact me directly as well.

MICHAEL JOHNSON Thu, 05/06/2010 - 10:45

Greg,


Thanks for the update, but I think most of us posting on this link understand the process, but that does not mean we accept it nor is it something we can sell to our customers. The one thing that HAS TO WORK on a phone system is the AA and voice mail. If a user cannot understand a voice mail messages and has to replay it one or more times so they can understand or interpret what message was left, it is unacceptable. That has to be fixed rapidly. The SBSC team seems to lack that urgency on this particular matter.


I have spent 3.5 hours (yes, I have the veramark call accounting to prove it) either on hold, waiting for an update or discussing the issue with the SBSC support team. After 3.5 hours and 7 days since ticket opening, it is still not resolved. It took me about 3 hours of the 3.5 hours to speak with an SBSC engineer that told me they could not help because my case was escalated. I have the software, but CCA won't load it. You would think that an SBSC engineer could assist with that.


All the time getting hammered by the client about the issue not to mention the NEGATIVE IMAPCT ON PARTNER PROFITABILITY.


When you say "supported" fix, do you know that the SBSC engineering team won't help me with the install nor do they support it? That to me is not a "supported" fix. Yes, there is a fix, but it is far from "supported". Therefore, when you say "supported" I think you  meant to say "available". Look up my case notes: SR 614273105.


Thank you.

glanders Thu, 05/06/2010 - 11:06

Certainly didn't want to imply you guys didn't understand our process, just wanted to circle it all together.


I totally agree with your other points and the hold, response times and time to resolution are unacceptable for many reasons!

The SBSC is supposed to be supporting these types of solutions, absolutely. I will look into this right away.

Ryan Sweet Wed, 06/02/2010 - 11:36

Any updates on when we can expect the new version to be released? We also have 3-4 sites which are currently being affected by this issue. Also, is there a bug ID on this problem? Thanks. 

MICHAEL JOHNSON Tue, 05/04/2010 - 20:14

Anybody having this issue on auto attend voice prompts as well? We got problems with both auto attend and voice mail prompts and voice mail outside recordings. This is a BAD BAD issue CISCO - FIX IT!

MICHAEL JOHNSON Wed, 05/05/2010 - 12:02

Yes.


Maybe not - it is only a 40 phone deal. Definitely not something anybody should care about...

Steven DiStefano Wed, 06/02/2010 - 13:06

/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";} CSCtf70144 is the defect ID.  I dont think this was shared in this thread.


The 8.0.3 bundle zip will address this with the CUE component.