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

"Remove All Associated" : CUCM ver 10.5.2.13043-3 : How to remove Device Associations

Hi,

I have searched a particular device (IP phone MAC) in CUCM (ver-10.5.2.13043-3) and press the "Remove All Associated" button to remove the device from the lines/directory numbers (because the user has multiple lines. see the image attached). THIS REMOVE ALL THE DEVICES (Many MAC addresses) FROM THE APPLICATION USER. I thought this feature is to remove the searched device from all the associated lines/directory numbers. This can be replicated as follows. The danger is, if this application user is associated to UCCX (contact center), then all the associated devices associated with agents will be removed due to this functionality which will down the contact center.

------------------------------------------ how to replicate the issue ------------------------------------------------
i) Choose ‘Application User’ screen from ‘User Management’ drop-down menu.
ii) Choose the appropriate ‘Application User Profile’ from the screen presented.
iii) Choose ‘Device Association’ on the right from the ‘Application User Configuration’ screen
iv) In the ‘Device Association’ screen, find the desired device using the search window.
v) Select the correct devices by ticking the right box.
vi) Click on ‘Remove All Associated’.

The last step has resulted in ‘ALL’ associations being removed – not just the selected ones.

A) Is this function correct or is it a bug? Isn't it suppose to remove only the selected associations?

B) What is the function of ‘Remove All Associated’ button?

11 REPLIES
Cisco Employee

I believe this is working as

I believe this is working as designed , i saw a TAC case a few months ago where a customer ran into the same issue. You may check with TAC if there is an enhancement to change this behavior.

HTH

Manish

New Member

Hi Manish,

Hi Manish,

Thank you for your reply. Is there a way to find the conclusion of that TAC case or any description of this scenario? It seems to be it is misleading as it dissociates all devices rather the device selected!

Thank you.

Cisco Employee

An internal bug was suspected

An internal bug was suspected, i do not see any further updates on that bug ( means the behavior is still the same ) and since it is internal it can't be shared. To get any further update on this you may open a  TAC SR.

Manish

New Member

Hi Manish,

Hi Manish,

Thank you for that information.

I have created a TAC case for this. Is there a way that you can engage with that case? Please provide what you have found.

Thank you.

Cisco Employee

You can message me the SR

You can message me the SR number and i can share the details with TAC engineer.

Manish

New Member

Hi Manish,

Hi Manish,

Following is the TAC case.

SR: 681900757 : "Remove All Associated" : CUCM ver 10.5.2.13043-3 : Remove Device Associations

Thank you

New Member

Hello Samarawickarma,

Hello Samarawickarma,

Just wanted to check if you get any fix for the above issue.

Is there any way we can hide/remove the Remove All Associated tab on CUCM.

We also have similar reports multiple times.

Cisco Employee

We are currently working on

We are currently working on an Enhancement to fix this issue, it will probaly be out on CUCM 12.X, Ill update details in this post

Antonio Taylor 

Collaboration CSE / Cisco TAC

New Member

Hi Antonio and other members,

Hi Antonio and other members,

Why am I here:

This has happened 5-6 times with in different teams(design, support and customer's internal) with in last 12 months(small, medium and Enterprise level). This does not mean that all the people were not capable enough to understand but it more often falls under "human error".  So, our responsibility(Partners and Vendors) is to understand the root cause, take feedback and work on best possible solution. 

Based on my follow-up meetings, below there is a bug open:

The bug is: CSCuz76525

https://bst.cloudapps.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCuz76525/?referring_site=bugquickviewredir 

I see below listed versions under "Fixed" list.

Known Fixed Releases:
(13)
12.0(0.98000.729)
12.0(0.98000.596)
12.0(0.98000.570)
12.0(0.98000.548)
12.0(0.98000.469)
12.0(0.98000.428)
12.0(0.98000.255)
12.0(0.98000.204)
12.0(0.98000.184)
12.0(0.98000.6)
11.6(2.10000.1)
11.5(1.13900.7)
11.5(1.13041.1)

Our understanding of the Fix:

It will be made "little" more  difficult. But we do not know what that means.

What we propose:

1. More understanding about what will be the fix?

2. Not all the organizations are using the latest ES of 11.5 or 12.0 version. Will         there be a COP file fix for those?

3. We can open a simple "Pop-up " window asking to "re-enter" some              password or same password in that pop up. This will break the flow of                  someone doing it accidentally. 

4. Is there a forum where all the partners or customers can raise their concern and suggestions. This way best possible and easiest ones can be picked.

Workarounds used: 

* So far we have been discussing with in teams to have more understanding about this(training/educating). 

* Banner option:

* It will be great if we can get things moving quick on this issue because this is a big problem.

Thank you.

Amarjeet

Cisco Employee

Hello Amarjeet,

Hello Amarjeet,

We totally understand the situation and the background of what you are saying, basically the problem with this is what users think the button does is not correct, its often see that you filter and select a couple of users and hit this button, but the button will remove all associations, so the fix is not changing the behavior of the button more what happens when you do a search or a filter on this sections, this means that you will no longer see the button avoiding the issue, and if you click on the button it will tell you exactly what is the purpose of it before it continues.

I will be posting more updates on the how and when very soon.

Thanks

Antonio Taylor

Collaboration CSE / Cisco TAC

Re: Hello Amarjeet,

Hi guys

Is the solution to this problem available now for 10.5 this issue has caused 3 P1 from a year.

 

 

Regards Mukesh 

231
Views
0
Helpful
11
Replies
CreatePlease to create content