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