Upgrade Callmanager 4.0

Answered Question
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 5 (3 ratings)
Correct Answer
Jaime Valencia Thu, 07/29/2010 - 11:17

Kinda, in many hops.

You need to go to 4.1(3) or 4.2(3) as the 1st hop.

Then to a 6.X or 7.X, and then finally to 8.X

Supported Cisco Unified Communications Manager Upgrades


If you ask for a direct upgrade the answer is no.



If this helps, please rate


Rob Huffman Thu, 07/29/2010 - 11:47

Hey Java,

Hope all is well

+5 for this great help here! I've always been curious (so I thought I'd finally

ask an expert) why there are many references in the doc you linked and in

other docs on CCO to the fact that DMA migration to many 5.x and 6.x CUCM versions

shows support from CCM 4.0(2a)??

Here are two such examples;




Jaime Valencia Thu, 07/29/2010 - 12:10

I'm not sure why 4.0(2) shows there, none of the Linux versions use that one as the foundation (later on I explain the importance of this).

5.X uses 4.1(3) as blueprint and 6.X uses 4.2(3).

Even if you look at the documentation for DMA, 4.0 is not mentioned, even when the upgrade matrix shows that it's possible.

Data Migration Assistant User Guide Release  6.0(1)


DMA assists you with the first step in migrating  Cisco Unified Communications Manager data from versions 4.1(x) and  4.2(x) to Cisco Unified Communications Manager 6.0(1) by backing up this  data in a format that Cisco Unified Communications Manager 6.0(1) can  read.

You always need to be in the latest release of whatever train you're on. In the early days DMA lacked validation for this and you could get a DMA file from a 4.1(2) or a 4.2(1) CCM. Later this was enforced so you couldn't run DMA on any of those versions.

Usually the closest the versions are related to features is the upgrade path you can use.

ie 6.1(5)/7.1(5) are closer to 8.5(1) featurewise than previous 6.X or 7.X releases, so it's easier to upgrade.

But notice that they are the latest releases for their trains.



If this helps, please rate


Rob Huffman Thu, 07/29/2010 - 12:47

Thanks Java!

+5 for taking the time to answer such a question.

Your explanation makes perfect sense and I've always followed these

same rules




This Discussion