We had purchased last year the support p/n CON-SAU-CM4-7825 for our Call Manager 4.0 installation.
The respective entitlement allowed us to upgrade to subsequent releases of the Call Manager and as a consequence we upgraded to Call Manager 5.1
The issue for our site is to extend the support for what has becomed now a Unified Communications Manager Software installation.
p/n CON-SAU-CM4-7825 is no longer sold by Cisco and also is irrelevant for the new situation. Can anybody in this forum explain which is the new Cisco p/n we should order which should replace CON-SAU-CM4-7825 (allowing us to install any updates for the Unified Communications Manager Software we have)?
SASU has been replaced for many Unified products with this new Support Model/Version;
Cisco Unified Communications Essential Operate Service
Hope this helps!
Thank you for the quick answer.
Based on the documentation you sent me I need both Essential Operate Service and Unified Communications Software Subscriptions.
We use MCS-7825H1 servers. Digging a bit in the data in the Pricing Tool I suspect the p/n are:
a) CON-ECD-L57825H1 Essential SW+8x5xNBD Lic CM 5X 7825-H1 Appliance
b) CON-SECD-L57825H1 CSSP ESS SW+8x5xNBD Lic CM 5X 7825-H1 Appliance
In addition if I need HW support for such a server I should order
c) CON-SNT-MCS7825H1 SMARTNET 8X5XNBD MCS 7825H-2266 Serve
Any comments to my guessing? Especially I am not quite sure about b). I hope that CSSP is indeed the Unified Communications Software Subscription.
I have not had the opportunity to price these support products so I can't comment on your choices :( If you send me a link to where you sourced these codes I would be happy to have a look for you.
Let me know,
I searched Cisco pricing tool (https://tools.cisco.com/qtc/pricing/MainServlet)
(of course CCO credentials required) initially for the p/n containing the string 7825 (my servers are MCS7825). This returns thousands of Cisco p/n. Then inside of these results I took a look at those related in any way with Call Manager...
Sorry man, no access for me :( I did find this excellent doc that leads me to beleive that b) is not the right part number. All Software Subscription part numbers begin with UCSS. Have a look;
Hope this helps!
Yes it helps.
According to page 9 of the document I should search for p/n containing ESW for Essential Operate Services and UCSS for Software Subscription.
My new candidates are:
a) SP-ESW-CM517825 SP Essential SW License CallMgr 5.1 7825 Appliance
b) UCSS-UCM-1-1K UCSS for UCM for One Year - 1,000 users
(this would be the Software Subscriptions for one year, MCS 7825 and 1000 users as our original CM4.0 license was)
So here is a scenario we have just encountered.
Fairly big project (for my side of the world)that went through Cisco Financing. now initially we had SASU and the final BOM was finished in 2006. customer approved in Early 2007 think Jan or Feb. during the processing - SASU was no longer available. i think they said the last day to quote was April 2007.
Now we didnt know this unitl now. when they started processing the contracts smartnet/ SASU etc, in September 2007 they realized the PN was no longer available. they then opted to give the customer SW Esstentials and stated that the pricing was the same.
Now my question is very simple
1. I cannot see the SW Esstesntials (Minor upgrades) and SASU being the same pricing point. i can see SW Essentials + Software subscription being the same as SASU
2. Based on the scenario, how should the customer be affected? should the SASU be honoured as it was in the middle of the transition (more or less).
Finally, the issue here is the contact centre app. we initially were going to upgrade the CCM from 4.0 to 4.2 with IPCC Pre 4.0. the customer was unsure of what might have been the best option so we recommended 5.1 upgrade, 4.5 IPCC pre with SASU cause there was already talk about CCM 6.0 and the customer wanted to know that he could upgrade to this without any issues.
We got IPCC 4.0 shipped and as it turned out there was a "mistake" in the final BOM, FROM our side as well in that the 4.0 PN was not changed to 4.5.
we did notice it after it couldnt be changed but was thinking we were safe in the SASU (We thought we covered our tracks well). then , the "scenario" occured.
what do you guys think? i mean, its not really a yes/no answer cause we should have been more careful as well but in any event, any comments would be welcome.
I am in the situation that I have ordered a Call Manager 6.0 upgrade (from CCM 5.1) during the validity of the SASU contract. This was possible . Although the SASU contract was refering to CCM 4.0 the major upgrades where included and we upgraded initially to 5.0 then using the software downloads to 5.1.
Cisco did not deliver the CCM 6.0 until the SASU expired. The new contract is not in place but they maintain they will still deliver the CCM 6.0. A person in Cisco informed me that there is a "resonable" interval (I belive 90 days) during which the contract replacing SASU has to be in place. After this the client is no longer entitled for such a contract and has to pay for a major upgrade.
Concerning your question 1 my understanding is that SW Essentials is giving the client the right to run CCM and to minor software upgrades. The software subscription must be related to the number of users a CCM instalation has to service and also gives the right to major upgrades. Unfortunately until now I have no explicit confirmation from Cisco what do I have to buy in my particular situation in order to correctly support the CCM installation i.e to have a replacement of the SASU contract.
I hope this info helps you.
it seems that the situation we are in is a bit unique. the SASU was not registered (delay from the distributor) and this is what caused everything to go the way it is going.
this is what i got from my rep
1) SW Essentials = SAS (with access to minor upgrades within the same version)
(2) SASU = UCSS (but UCSS is being treated as a product, so discounts are higher than SmartNet/SW Essentials or old SAS/SASU... Good deal for customers)
in the end though, i think we will have to bite the bullet on this.
thanks for the response