Call Unity Subnet Best Practice

Answered Question
Jun 25th, 2010

Hi All,


Why does CCA configure Call Unity Express with a separate subnet. Can I use the below example and have it on the same subnet?


Capture.JPG

Correct Answer by David Trad about 6 years 8 months ago

Hi Steve,


I think I've stirred up a hornets nest here


Nope you haven't, these are perfectly normal discussions, and have happened before and will no doubt happen again on these forums


Please correct me if I am wrong here but with my very minimal experience
 with the UC500 it seems to me that Cisco is trying to make the customer
 network UC500 centric.


There is no real defined answer for this, I guess from Cisco's perspective the system is going to be installed into an SMB/SME environment, so the UC-500 will handle the entire network, this I assume is an assumption on their part, which I must add is a fair assumption as well. But lets be brutally honest since we are all peers I would rather a Cisco appliance handle my network (DHCP/Routing) over any windows based system, and I am not saying that to have a shot at Microsoft (Although it did feel good ) I am pointing our an obvious thing, well to me it is anyway.


I wish this was the case however unfortunately in the real world 
anything goes and most of the time SMB's don't have the budget to 
rearrange there network.


A wise man once said to me when I started playing with the UC-500's (Dave Harper in particular), Cisco hand you the noose, it is up to you if you want to string it around your neck and strangle yourself, although I am positive he did put it in a more eloquent way This was brought up because I said to him I couldn't believe how much access an engineer has to the internals (This was me being naive).


The beauty of Cisco is that they do not close the system off, not like other vendors out there, this does however produce on wanted problems and increase the amount of support traffic that really could be avoided. Again I reiterate my past statements, this is the very reason why CCA needs to be developed and a fully functioning, fully operational and complete user friendly GUI needs to be developed, not to diminish the capabilities of the old school engineers, but to reinforce the new engineers entering the field... Well this is my views not the ones of Cisco.



I am excited and love the fact that Cisco has built a box that is a complete solution but sometimes customers only require the telephony component and demand Cisco.



You are not the only one to raise this very question or statement, and I love the fact you are excited about the UC-5XX systems, they truly are a good bit of kit, but like anything Cisco, if you do not do the job right the first time, down the track you will be in a world of hurt, and your world of hurt will turn into a nightmare if you do not have SmartNet, I almost get reduced to tears when i am asked to work on a system that has no SmartNet cover, what would normally take maybe 2 hours to resolve with TAC's help, ends up taking days to resolve on my own, I will eventually get it, but man I seriously have no hair left by the end of it.



If changing the default structure of the config makes CCA inoperable 
what do I tell customers who would like to manage there UC500?


Teach them how to use the inbuilt Web GUI, that is what i do and i have a templated document full of grahpics to help them with it, and customise the details where needed. The Web interface is all the end users need, if they want to start changing IP addresses or Vlans, then you need to consider so many things as this will open up a massive can of worms for you, there is nothing worse then selling a box to a know it all, who then destroys your hours of hard work to set the system up and not only blames the system, but then has the gal to blame you for it.



I have seen and used CCA since version 1.8, it's improvements since then have been vast, in fact that would be an understatement. But I do still think it is far from being mature enough to push it as the primary way to build and manage a system, I was once part of a EFT called CCC (Cisco Configuration Center), which till this day believe it to be the best ever and what would have been the ultimate configuration utility developed by Cisco, its potential was far greater then CCA in my opinion, but it did have draw backs, maybe these draw backs might prevent it from becoming a reality.




Hmmm I seem to rant more on Sundays must be the hiding from the kids in my office



Cheers,



David.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 5 (1 ratings)
Loading.
David Trad Sat, 06/26/2010 - 06:36

Hi Steve,


In essence you want to run a flat network setup, this is very possible and I do it all the time, but it needs to be done via CLI and the system will no longer be manageable by CCA, as this is not a supported setup with CCA (Well last time I checked any way, so I am happy to stand corrected).


Also I should point out that this should not be encouraged on a UC540/560 appliance as these appliances are supported by the SMB support team (Not their official name but that is what I call them), if you do this on a UC520 you will get TAC support which can support this and can be controlled via CLI. So when looking at deployments do you your homework, if the deployment requires a Flat Network setup, then you will have to consider the UC520 as your first preference, and the other two as a last resort if the feature sets of the other two are required (Such as larger storage).


Probably not the best answer for you, but it is the only one i have



Cheers,


David.

SteveOrfanos Sat, 06/26/2010 - 12:45

David,


When I first read your response I hastely compared default configuration files and concluded that they are almost identical. When I reread you response I realised that the difference is not in the hardware but support process.TAC versus SMB Support Team.


Would it not be possible to tack on a Smartnet Service product to the UC540/560?


Cheers


Steve

David Trad Sat, 06/26/2010 - 14:42

Hi Steve,


Would it not be possible to tack on a Smartnet Service product to the 
UC540/560?


Ok how do I say this without winding me up


As I understand it, no you can not. However I still maintain my stance on this that we should still have that option as you pay more for it then the SMB support contracts, and we should be able to setup both, but then this would conflict with the SMB support because everything they do is GUI based, everything that TAC do is CLI based, and on top of that TAC representative do not honor OOB guides as the majority of them will not be aware of them or even trained in them.


I still am not entirely sure about how this was approached, something just does not sit right, but I am being cautious as well because Cisco may have a plan, I don't know what it is but I do hope it works




Hi CSCO10024976,


There are always technical reasons for doing so, we have many clients that run MPLS based networks and only allow certain subnet's on the network, so to avoid being in breach of their policies we run a flat network setup, this way everything operates on the same subnet and you can avoid trying to do complex setups and creating massive headaches for yourself.


When you have 40 sites running on the same MPLS network and half of them have UC500 at the branch offices, you need to set things up right, especially when you want all the boxes talking to each other.


There are many more reasons but that is one of the primary ones I use.




Cheers,


David.

SteveOrfanos Sat, 06/26/2010 - 22:20

David,


I think I've stirred up a hornets nest here . Please correct me if I am wrong here but with my very minimal experience with the UC500 it seems to me that Cisco is trying to make the customer network UC500 centric. I wish this was the case however unfortunately in the real world anything goes and most of the time SMB's don't have the budget to rearrange there network.

I have customers who have enormous budget, over 100 sites globally who have a private network as David noted and demand a flat config.

I am excited and love the fact that Cisco has built a box that is a complete solution but sometimes customers only require the telephony component and demand Cisco.

If changing the default structure of the config makes CCA inoperable what do I tell customers who would like to manage there UC500?

Correct Answer
David Trad Sat, 06/26/2010 - 23:12

Hi Steve,


I think I've stirred up a hornets nest here


Nope you haven't, these are perfectly normal discussions, and have happened before and will no doubt happen again on these forums


Please correct me if I am wrong here but with my very minimal experience
 with the UC500 it seems to me that Cisco is trying to make the customer
 network UC500 centric.


There is no real defined answer for this, I guess from Cisco's perspective the system is going to be installed into an SMB/SME environment, so the UC-500 will handle the entire network, this I assume is an assumption on their part, which I must add is a fair assumption as well. But lets be brutally honest since we are all peers I would rather a Cisco appliance handle my network (DHCP/Routing) over any windows based system, and I am not saying that to have a shot at Microsoft (Although it did feel good ) I am pointing our an obvious thing, well to me it is anyway.


I wish this was the case however unfortunately in the real world 
anything goes and most of the time SMB's don't have the budget to 
rearrange there network.


A wise man once said to me when I started playing with the UC-500's (Dave Harper in particular), Cisco hand you the noose, it is up to you if you want to string it around your neck and strangle yourself, although I am positive he did put it in a more eloquent way This was brought up because I said to him I couldn't believe how much access an engineer has to the internals (This was me being naive).


The beauty of Cisco is that they do not close the system off, not like other vendors out there, this does however produce on wanted problems and increase the amount of support traffic that really could be avoided. Again I reiterate my past statements, this is the very reason why CCA needs to be developed and a fully functioning, fully operational and complete user friendly GUI needs to be developed, not to diminish the capabilities of the old school engineers, but to reinforce the new engineers entering the field... Well this is my views not the ones of Cisco.



I am excited and love the fact that Cisco has built a box that is a complete solution but sometimes customers only require the telephony component and demand Cisco.



You are not the only one to raise this very question or statement, and I love the fact you are excited about the UC-5XX systems, they truly are a good bit of kit, but like anything Cisco, if you do not do the job right the first time, down the track you will be in a world of hurt, and your world of hurt will turn into a nightmare if you do not have SmartNet, I almost get reduced to tears when i am asked to work on a system that has no SmartNet cover, what would normally take maybe 2 hours to resolve with TAC's help, ends up taking days to resolve on my own, I will eventually get it, but man I seriously have no hair left by the end of it.



If changing the default structure of the config makes CCA inoperable 
what do I tell customers who would like to manage there UC500?


Teach them how to use the inbuilt Web GUI, that is what i do and i have a templated document full of grahpics to help them with it, and customise the details where needed. The Web interface is all the end users need, if they want to start changing IP addresses or Vlans, then you need to consider so many things as this will open up a massive can of worms for you, there is nothing worse then selling a box to a know it all, who then destroys your hours of hard work to set the system up and not only blames the system, but then has the gal to blame you for it.



I have seen and used CCA since version 1.8, it's improvements since then have been vast, in fact that would be an understatement. But I do still think it is far from being mature enough to push it as the primary way to build and manage a system, I was once part of a EFT called CCC (Cisco Configuration Center), which till this day believe it to be the best ever and what would have been the ultimate configuration utility developed by Cisco, its potential was far greater then CCA in my opinion, but it did have draw backs, maybe these draw backs might prevent it from becoming a reality.




Hmmm I seem to rant more on Sundays must be the hiding from the kids in my office



Cheers,



David.

SteveOrfanos Sat, 06/26/2010 - 23:51

I've got my 11 month old twins circling my chair as we speak. I was always planning on configuring the UC500 via command line so I not that disappointed with CCA's limitations.

The fact that you cannot tack SmartNet to the UC540/560 is a concern. Making it work is not the issue, being time poor and having to reinvent the wheel is. After all, management and sales are adamant that it's plug and play.

CSCO10024976 Sat, 06/26/2010 - 13:32

Just curious -- is there a technical reason to change the default IP addresses of the CUE and the Integrated-Service-Engine interface ?

SteveOrfanos Sat, 06/26/2010 - 17:48

No, but it may be a request by the customer. After all it is there equipment. Also based on the material I've been reading it outlines 2 ways to configure the service engine,number and unnumbered. I guess that would apply to CME on a ISR not the UC500.


I have been in the telephony game for a long time and know how difficult customers can be regardles of recommendations and best practices.

speakeasy51 Sat, 06/26/2010 - 19:26

When you use CLI to do UC500 configuration, do you use Cisco's factory default '.cfg' file as a starting point, or, start from a blank config ?

David Trad Sat, 06/26/2010 - 22:40

Hi Speakeasy.


When you use CLI to do UC500 configuration, do you use Cisco's factory 
default '.cfg' file as a starting point, or, start from a blank config ?


The .CFG is a brilliant starting point, it produces the basic setup for you to allow you to work on the system, the .CFG is a very important file to me, and you should always make sure you have the right one for your system, use the wrong one and you will have all sorts of issues.



Cheers,



David.

Actions

This Discussion