Cisco Support Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Community Member

MoH in a MultiTenant environment

Hi

Very quick question - I have a client that has 3 tenants who they are going to supply IP phone services via CallManager. My question - are there any issues that are known with deploying multiple different MoH sources, say, one for each tenant?

I guess the best way is to just do it via the Device Pool Level and have multiple device poos per tenant with the appropriate MoH sources assiged to each pool.

Can anyone quickly confirm or deny the above?

Rgds

Marc

5 REPLIES
VIP Purple

Re: MoH in a MultiTenant environment

Marc,

Yes, you're on the right track. Unless it's necessary to have different sources for each phone, it's much easier to configure at the device pool level. You can have up to 50 MOH sources.

Hope this helps. If so, please rate the post.

Brandon

Community Member

Re: MoH in a MultiTenant environment

Hi

Many thanks for that. Much appreciated. I thought that was the case, but needed to make sure.

Rgds

Marc

Re: MoH in a MultiTenant environment

Marc,

You can setup multiple audio sources and then use device pools for each tenant. I would recommend multicast moh for this for the reason that only one stream is used per tenant. Make sure multicast is enabled in the network though.

If you r providing a managed service and you ahve t1s of a low bandwidth link between your network and the tenants network, it might be wise to use moh streams from flash. In this case you define only one audio source in callmanager, use g711 for moh and store a different music file in the flash of the router that you put in the tenants network. The router needs to be configured for multicast moh from flash.

Community Member

Re: MoH in a MultiTenant environment

In CCM 4.2(3)es10, the MOH setting in Device Pool is gone. You can't specify the MOH audio source ID any more......

Community Member

Re: MoH in a MultiTenant environment

Many thanks for letting me know that.

I wonder if that means that there are plans to remove it from 5.1 and beyond? Hmm, that would be interesting, as it will mean significant re-config of several IPT deployments to keep the same features that the customers now have

133
Views
3
Helpful
5
Replies
CreatePlease to create content