According to this doc on cisco.com
You should be fine. If you look specifically at the section on determining the partner Exchange server here...
When Cisco Unity subscriber mailboxes will be homed in Exchange 2007 as well as in Exchange 2003 and/or Exchange 2000, choose a partner server based on the considerations already mentioned as well as the roles installed on the server and ease of access to Exchange 2007 servers:
This would lead me to believe you can have all 3 types of Exchange mailboxes in this organization.
I would also recommend you make the 2k7 server your partner server.
Yes, you can. The only caveat is that if you START with Exchange 2007, you can NOT install Exchange 2000/2003 into the Exchange Org. (microsoft rule)
So if your Exchange Org is Exchange 2000/2003, then in you install Exchange 2007, it will work fine. If you have subscribers on Exchange 2007, you will need to add the script in to make it work.
Thanks for your replies .. One last thing can the users be on different E7 boxes with the one unity 5 or do they have to be where the Unity is homed ?
Your users can be on any Exchange that is in the organization and has permissions wizard run on it's stores. There is only one partner but not all of your users mailboxes have to be on that Exchange server.
Just to futher clearify... Unity uses the Exchange MTA to transfer messages between the Unity server and the exchange environment. The true requirement for a partner server is that the exchange MTA (Management Tools) matches the version of your partner server. Once this is correct Unity uses AD queries to gather mailbox location ( mail server location for mailbox of user) and then uses the local exchange MTA to route the message via the partner server. Hope this helps!
Somewhat odd situation but kinda related. I have a customer that has a Unity VM only running Exchange 2000 that is in the corporate domain. They were running Lotus Notes for their email and are switching to Exchange. They have installed Exchange 2007 into the existing Exchange org. There are no Unity subscribers on the Exchange 2007 server. What we are running into is a problem with messages being delayed in delivery to voicemail (or according to the customer, voicemails are not even arriving). This is intermittent, so difficult to troubleshoot. I don't believe that they have run perm wizard to give rights to the new Exchange 2007 server (not really sure that would be required since there are NO subs on the 2007 server but....). Any ideas would be appreciated.
The only way you're going to be able to track down if messages are being delivered properly is to run message tracking on all Exchange servers to see where the messages are ending up. Have you checked the MTA folder for stuck messages to ensure they're leaving Unity? I would also check the queues in Exchange just to be sure nothing is getting hung up there either.
good point! Also check to see if the messages are being delivered into the catch all account EAAdmin or whichever account is configured for this. Basically, Unity will not "lose" any messages, and this account will catch all the non-delivered voicemails. If they are going into there, I'd check the subscriber to see if the Alias name and also the Exchange Server name is there. If it's not, for whatever reason the SQL database does not have this, the account is there, but when the voicemail is to be delivered.. bounces and goes into the catch all account.
I have seen SQL databases fill in "NULL" on the Exchange Server name... we had to go into the SQL server and update it manually.
anyways, hope something helps ya
Thanks for the responses. They have been running message tracking, and it appears that Unity lost its mapi connection to Exchange. They had run message store config wizard, and that problem appears to have gone away, although now it looks like they are having AD replication probs. All sorts of fun.
As a finalized update....Issue was related to permissions in AD. dirsvc account did NOT have full permissions to unity\locations (even though perm wiz was run with an account with domain admin rights). We delegated control to the ou in question and all is good now.