During the upgrade process from pre-9.0 releases to CUCM 9.0 and later, ELM is installed and lets you convert your licensing from the DLU model to the UCL/CUWL licensing model. This worked fine for the upgrades that I have already done, but now I am trying to plan how to allocate unused DLUs to the other license classes for the dozen or so additional clusters that I need to migrate. ELM does NOT appear to have an offline mode where you can enter a number DLUs and then come up with an acceptable allocation of UCL/CUWL/TP rooms beforehand.
Is there a formula somewhere that I can use to do this planning in advance of the actual upgrades?
The License Count Utility does this http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/upgrade/uct/CUCM_BK_UCT_Admin_Guide_chapter_01.html
Unofrtunately, that function has been removed from LCU in the current version and all previous versions have been removed from Cisco.com
I agree with you[+5]. You need to run LCU 9.1.2 online for generating csv file and send to licensing Team.
You do not get option of Conversion worksheet and RUN Compliance Check.
You can also refer the link
I have the same problem.
And when I sent ELM request to license team after upgrade to 9.1, they are doesn't convert unused DLUs to Enhanced and Basic.
Now I'am trying to make sure that they have written and convert unused DLUs, but so far without success.
this should not be the case.
You should receive mail from Cisco licensing team /Product Manager asking for the confirmation on conversion of Unsed DLUs to Enhanced/Basic.
No, they don't ask me how I want.
And else one. They generate license from PLU 9.1.2 report only. But after made this report, customer added some devices and report after upgrade from ELM was different.
And now they don't want generate additional license file. It is very frustrating.
that should not be the problem.
You can generate new LCU report and share with licensing team. They can accordingly generate license file.
Also, whenever u add new phones in call manager 9, u need to follow the same process and have another lic file.
Are you sure the LCU report shared contains unused DLUs? If that is there, then, u can ask licensing team to revert on conversion of unused DLUS.
This was not consistent with my experience. The license team used the LCU report, without the allocation of the unused DLUs, in spite of my request being very clear about that NOT being what I needed. It took almost a month to resolve with multiple escalations in the process.
I just went through a particularly painful exercise with the Cisco licensing group migrating a CUCM 8.6 system to 9.1. They required the following:
1) License request from ELM
2) Cisco SO# for upgrade order
3) Output of the LCU utility
4) ESW/UCSS contract number
In spite of carefully spelling out exactly what I needed was in the ELM license request, they issued a license which covered, all the licenses contained in the LCU report. Unfortunately, the LCU report covered a dozen or so different clusters, which are isolated from each other and could not share an ELM. After almost a month of working with the licensing group, I finally got it straightened out. In the process, I grabbed this information from the ELM 9.1 migration license calculator:
License Type DLUs Required
CUWL Professional 12
CUWL Standard 11
Enhanced Plus 9
Telepresence Room 11
thanks for sharing the info.
this is the process which we need to follow.But I did not understand about LCU report in which u are referring to dozen clusters or different clusters .
When u run LCU report, u enter the credentials of single cluster.
The version of LCU that I ran allowed multiple clusters and credentials to be input. I work for a SP and we did this for several of our managed service clusters for different customers on a single report that we used to get our contract entitlement correct. The problem became that although I asked for license for only one of the clusters on the report, GLO issued all licenses for all clusters to a single ELM. Unfortunately for me, the multiple clusters are isolated from each other and could not share an ELM instance, so unwinding this back to the proper state became the painful, time-consuming part of the process.
I did, and also conveyed what I wanted done with the unused DLUs in the LCU report, but they ignored both pieces of information and issued a single license with just the allocated DLUs for all clusters and threw away all unused DLUs.