Im struggling with Owner User ID and Extension mobility.
It seems to me that unless we set Owner user ID on every single hardware phone, it uses an extra license. Why would you set owner user ID when you are using extension mobility? The whole point of extension mobility is that a phone has no owner, they can use any phone.
The problem is, if you set owner user ID on every phone, users get an EXTRA phone appear in their UCM user options (https://callamanger/ucmuser) that has nothing to do with them.
So for example, john smith may have an iPhone jabber, a CSF jabber, and an EM user device profile. If you set a desk phone to be owner by him, he sees four devices under his UCMUser, even though he only ever uses three.
This causes complaints and confusion for users. The only option I see is just to not set owner user ID for the physical desk phones, but this results in using twice as many licenses as we should.
Am I missing something here?
From CUCM version 9.1(1a) , EM has been removed as a licensed user feature.
A device requires a licnese when it is added to CUCM based on device type/model.After that device is mapped to a user by setting the owner userID.Thereafter,licensing comes.
A user is associated to device when useid is entered in Owner USerId option of teh device.when associated, user and device share the licnese.
with essential /Basic/Enhanced UCL, we can have one device while with Enhanced Plus/CUWL Std/Professional, we can have more than 2 devices associated per user.
Thats exactly my point.
Why are we assigning an owner to a hardware phone, when we are using a feature (Extension mobility) that is designed to allow people to log in to ANY hardware phone (So phones do not have "owners)
If we assign an owner to a phone, that hardware phone appears in the users user options web page - The self care portal. This is silly.
If you are using extension mobility then phones do not have owners, people merely have device profiles that are used on ANY phone and ANY hpone can be owned by ANY user. Why are we statically assigning an owner User ID for a desk phone when the User is inherantly mobile and not static?
I have two choices, do not statically assign phones, and use twice as many licenses. Or statically assign a phone, and the user has the option to administer a phone (in their CM user options) that they may never sit at; And certainly never NEED to administer, because all of the settings are under their device profile, and NOT the desk phone because the user uses extension mobility.
Can you see my point?
Can't you just set the owner option to Anonymous (Public/Shared Space)?
EDIT: Yes you can, I just did it.
Screenshot of the seciton I'm referring to:
But doesnt that then use more of a differnet type of license?
AFAIK public space devices are licensed differently, I may be wrong though?
I'm not sure, as I haven't had a chance to learn ELM/PLM yet, but that's not the point.
Your point of:
"If we assign an owner to a phone, that hardware phone appears in the users user options web page - The self care portal. This is silly."
Is now addressed with the Anonymous setting. How you pay Cisco for using their products is a different matter.
Sorry if that sounds blunt, but I'm never one to arguing over software licensing. It sucks and we have to play by their rules. At least now your users don't see desk phones in the Self Care Portal.
It doesn't use a different type of license really. It will borrow from your CUWL/UCL licensing. User-based licensing allows users to have multiple devices with a single license. Setting everything as a public space phone will use a user license for each phone which can be a pain. You may end up needing extra licenses if each user also has a Jabber device or a Remote Destination Profile. For Extension Mobility deployments, I have heard of account managers recently giving out additional licensing to cover these kinds of scenarios.
There isnt really a work around... its just the way that Cisco think it should be!!!
There is no real solution for it im afraid. you either have to assign your phones to your users (Even though they are in an EM deployment) or you can possibly create a new user, and assign all phones to that user.
What you will find then though is that the new user you have created will consume quite a few licenses (from memory I think you can have up to 10 devices for each "CUWL Pro" user type)
So a dummy user with 100 phones assigned might then use 10 CUWL pro licenses according to the ELM. You can then fight with your Cisco account manager to get them to supply 10 extra licenses FOC because of this stupid problem; They may or may not relent; I have not tried this. In my deployment we have a surplus of licenses so it wasnt a problem.
I feel your pain. I'm facing exactly the same dilemma as you and realising the same outcome. we've also made extensive use of extension mobility.
If I understand the thread correctly, even if I review each of my 3500 EM users, look at which device they are currently logged in on and associate that device to the user, the minute they have an office shuffle or hot desk and log into another IP phone, PLM potentially then goes into "overage mode" or dips into the spares pool until I update the device associations?
That is absolutely bonkers. To my mind EM then becomes a licensable service, it is just done by stealth rather than up front.
Actually no, thankfully your comments on users signing into another device are not the case.
The simple explanation is this:
1 phone uses one license
1 user with at least one device assigned uses one license
1 user can "own" at least 1 device
If you do not set an "owner" for a device, it uses a license. If a user has a device profile associated with their account, this also uses a license. So in theory, a user could use a license, and log into an IP Phone that is also using a second license.
In the above example, two licenses would be consumed.
If you set the device to be OWNED by the user above, only one license is consumed.
The problem comes in that
a) You have to do a 1:1 association of users to devices to get your license counts right
b) Once these devices are assigned, the user can then administer the device you assigned to be owned by them in their user options web page (Causing confusion, since they will never actually see the settings of the base device because they are logged in)
c) If user A is owner of phone A, and user B is owner of phone B, and user and and user B swap desks, User A can still administer phone A even though they are sitting at phone B, and vice versa. Albeit it the settings will never take effect anywhere, since everyone is logged in. This leads to confusion amongst users as to which device they should be adding speed dials to etc.
People logging in here there and everywhere has NO effect on license counts. It is based purely on:
Number of devices assigned to each user (to determine license type required by that user; Basic/Enhanced/UWL See http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/unified-communications/unified-communications-licensing/product_solution_overview0900aecd806cc7a4.html for details)
Number of physical, SEP Devices configured in combination with who the owners are (To determine how many licenses are required)
Have a look at Cisco Device Assignment Tool. It helps to do the association, but unfortunately doesn't alleviate the sillyness with user options.
In my opinion the fix to this is to have a check box on the admin page for each IP phone or under a common phone profile setting "Display device in Unified CM User Options"
The default should be set to no if the phone has extension mobility enabled, and yes if it does not.
We could even go one further and implement some logic:
if phone is logged into by a user, assign it to that user for licensing purposes until either:
Phone is logged into by another user
Phone remains registered but logged out for 30 days
In conjunction with the above setting, it would take a lot of the pain out of the current licensing system.
Wow - thanks for the explanation. So not as bad as I thought!
I concur that applying your suggested logic would take out a lot of the pain and offer an optimal solution. In fact it begs the question, why didn't Cisco think of that?
There is a solution for this and that solution is to contact Cisco license. We have recently discussed this with cisco and they realise it's a problem they created. When you email cisco they will give you a temporary license that will automatically expire when they fix this at some point in the future.
Thanks for the information - I will follow this up with our Cisco account manager/technical solutions architect/systems engineer.
I just want to ask, is the behavior of owner user id for an extension mobility phone still the same?
We have a customer with the latest 10.5 CUCM version (10.5(2)SU4a), and it looks like (after nearly 1 year of your post) that still end user can see the logout device with owner user id, when we associate end user with phones.
Did that behavior changed in the latest 11.5 version of CUCM? Or maybe will it be changed in CUCM version 12?
Otherwise I will follow your instructions and talk to licensing team and create a default-license user which owns all logout-phones.
Thanks and best regards
The behavior has not changed as far as I know, especially in CUCM10.5.
What I did in my previous project is to ensure that each phone is assigned an owner user id, even if EM is going to be used. You do have to remember that the field owner user id is used only for licensing and does not necessarily mean that the user owns the phone and this becomes very important when using EM. This way you dont run into licensing issues. But if that was not done previously then contact Cisco license team
I understand the necessary of the owner user field and the matching between phone and user, when you will have a correct license count. And that is not the point for my question, even when customer didn’t configured the owner field in the past I see no problem to fill that field with specific users or information.
The big really unlucky impact is, that phones with an owner user id will show in SelfCare-Portal of the end user. I don’t understand the necessary for that. They see a device, configure speed dial and other things and ask the support why they don’t see the changes in there device profile (EM). User don’t see the different between a device and a device profile and I can understand that. Hell, I don’t see a different between device and device profile in SelfCare-Portal if I wouldn’t know the issue we are running into.
Of course I can tell them, sorry please configure the correct device or enable synchronization between all devices when configuring something.
But I think that behavior is the real problem. And like I said, I don’t understand the necessary for that.
It would be good, when in later releases that behavior is changed.
The option to contact license team and get additional license for workaround is also unlucky.
The license overview and the count of license between different systems (like CUCM or Unity Connection) is hard enough to manage, when you deal with additional temporary license you lost complete the overview in my opinion.
Sorry Ayodeji for my words. But I totally not understand why we have an issue (in my opinion) since over 3 years and must still work with more than unlucky workarounds…
Nevertheless thank you for your quick answer.
Strangely, I'm working on a version 9.1 call manager at the moment and have just been through this process to sort out the licensing estate:
I just signed into my user options page and I do NOT see an SEP device in there, despite being the "owner" of one via owner user ID. If I set it as a "controlled device" under my end user, it appears.
It seems Cisco must have added this "feature" to make owned devices show up in your user options in later versions of CUCM.
Carl, this is working as designed.
The owner user id is only for licensing.
To enable a user to manage a device from the self care portal or user page you need to associate the device to the user.
They are two different things and often people mixed them up
I Don't agree. The entire reason that I started this thread was because Cisco gave us a choice:
1)associate owner user ID to SEP, and have a nonsensical device show up in end user options
2)Dont associate owner user ID to SEP and buy 2x licenses.
I'm pretty sure I have seen this across multiple systems (I worked for a Cisco gold partner for ten years doing nothing but setting up call manager systems)
I recently did a set up on version 11 and I remember the customer being unhappy with these devices showing up. I had to go through and unassociate over 2000 SEP devices from the end users. This is always a pain since I've never found an easy way to REMOVE a controlled device from users using bulk admin. I ended up having to do it direct with an SQL tool.
Ben Krueger also seems to agree with me below.
However, I don't have a version 11 system to test with at the moment. Only version 9.1 - where this is NOT the case, hence me thinking it had changed.
In any case, if anyone needs to sort out licensing, I did this recently.
I hope it helps someone.
I am glad you disagreed. :)
It does look like the behaviour has changed from version 9.
in CUCM ver 9.1 owner userid is used strictly for licensing. To control a device, that device has to be associated with the end user. Setting the owner user will not associate the device to the end user ( I just confirmed now on my CUCM 9 cluster)
on CUCM 11.0 setting the owner userid on a device automatically associates the device to the user. ( I confirmed this now too)
We had similar situation, where I had to upgrade a 8.0 cucm to 11.5. The customer was using cucm only for making basic telephony, no jabber with EM. Doing a back conversion we got 200 cuwl licenses. I assigned all devices to one local user and used up only 20 cuwl licenses. Our account manager from cisco said,, it may not be legal and make the cucm non compliant. When I asked for documentaion proof, he is not reponding to that.
Cisco Licensing team says, as long as PLM says Compliant, the cucm is Compliant ... I could not find any documentation related to this.
Can you please share your knowlege on this .
I do not know why the account manager said that. How you use your licenses is totally up to you. So I do not see any issues there
Hi Carl, I feel your pain :-)
I noticed this in 10.5 , when lots of users started seeing devices appear in enduser.
I have used AXL to "clean this up" ...... but to me it's a fundamental flaw.( that we have to live with )