Good afternoon everyone.
I'm having a weird issue at a client in which CCP is inaccurately reporting that the CUE has reached its maximum limit of mailboxes. I know this is not the case as I have gotten on the cli of the CUE module and run "sh voicemail usage" and its reporting 42 mailboxes. Additionally I can create mailboxes on the cli AND within the CUE gui page.
I have taken these steps thus far:
After each of these steps, attempts to create a new user/mailbox in CCP resulted in the same message "Number of Configured Mailboxes on CUE 61 has reached the limit of maximum number of Configurable Mailboxes 60."
Any ideas on what to try next?
The CCP version is the latest of 2.6
The various optional cisco GUIs, as with any other product, can and do often have bugs.
Since these are not essentional for operating the system, nor widely used, one generally just moves on when finding them.
If it were just me, I would agree with you. However, we deployed this system for a client with the intent that they IT staff would be able to manage day to day changes without our assistance. They are not very knowledgable in the ways of the CLI and are much more comfortable with the GUI for managing their new phones. I understand that bugs happen but that does not mean I should just have to accept it and stop looking for a solution.
If you can't accept a bug, the following step is very simple, open a TAC case (requires paid support contract), provide all needed evidence, wait, then for lesser issue like this one, you can have a resolution within 6 - 12 months approx.
A bit of further info out there for anyone viewing this later or with any helpful hints, there seems to be something wrong with the installation of the CUE software on the module.
There are commands missing that, to my knowledge, should be there. Below are the two specific ones I've seen referenced in the Cisco documentation on CUE commands ( http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/voice_ip_comm/unity_exp/administrator/AA_and_VM/guide/users.html)
username userid delete
username userid fullname
Both of those are missing when I go to the CLI of the module. Unless these have been deprecated for some reason, this seems to be the problem. When using CCP to create a new mailbox or user, I have always filled in the First and Last name fields. Any time I do that I get the License Error (which is obviously erroneous). However, if I create a new user, using CCP and don't fill in the First and Last name fields, the process works without an error.
Even stranger is if I then use CCP to delete this user and phone I can see it is issuing the command "usernameuserid delete". As I mentioned, this command is unavailable from the CLI when I'm connected but not only does CCP issue the command, the command works and the user is deleted from the CUE.
Unless anyone has any additional input, my next step will be to attempt a reinstall and/or a fresh install of the CUE software
If I am not mistaken, you should use some of the "username" commands from the EXEC mode, not configuration mode.
Check example here:
You're right Boris, my mistake. Thought I was on to something there. Oh well back to to testing. At least I know what direction I don't need to go in!
Can you explain why you rated my post above with "1" ?
Did I provide incorrect information ?
Or more, likely, that was done in a frustration, not having got the kind of answer you liked ?
I'll be happy to explain.
On a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being very helpful and 1 being not helpful I found your responses to be not helpful.
I have a TAC case open and I am aware that CCP and GUIs in general are inherently buggy. However, I posted on the forums to cover all of my bases and see if anyone else in the community had a similar issue that they were able to resolve in some way.
Neither of your posts seemed geared towards helping, in fact your tone came across as dismissive.
In the first post you suggested I simply move on and seemed to imply I was wasting my time trying to work on this for my client.
In the second post, I just found it to be not very helpful because I already have a TAC case (i suppose I should have mentioned this) but again your tone came off as dismissive and not interested in helping me resolve the issue.
Thanks for you explanation.
Turns out that you have rated my posts for the 'tone' (as you perceived it, and that is subjective) and not by the objective correctness or helpfulness of the content. That in my opinion, stands by any fair judgment, as reflected by my rating and status in over five years here.
Not expecting or asking for further discussion, whish you good luck.