I have noticed that Cisco has made improvements to IOS, CUE, and CCA for the UC520. However, there are some improvements that cannot be made at the software level on the UC520.
Here are the improvements that I would like to see made on the next version of the UC520:
Unlike the enhancements made in IOS, CME, CUE, and CCA, making hardware-level enhancements requires the release of a new model in the UC520 series. Will Cisco be releasing a new model of the UC500 in the UC500 series?
I'm afraid we can't comment on plans for future products, but I can say that the points you have raised are valid concerns, we are very aware of them, and are looking at ways of addressing them as expeditiously as possible.
As well I cant comment on products not available to sell, but let me as for some further input if you dont mind...
As you indicated there are 2 Flash memory cards (external IOS Flash and internal CUE Flash). The IOS Flash is the one that we are currently getting close to 100% filled and are making some recommendations for UC520 to remove phoneloads you do not use at a particular site, and may make this part of CCA to make it easier to do (Phoneloads are the biggest hog). What else do you put on flash besides what is there already and in addition to custom desktops and prompts? Do you run any applications to write data to flash for example, if so which ones? Would you consider a doubling of IOS flash a good improvement?
The CUE flash stores voice mail. While you can adjust voice mail allocations (net sum zero game) so more can be given to some at the expense of others (kitchen, lobby phones, etc), what amount of voice mail box size do you consider competitive out there right now?
I have seen a CLI workaround to make one of the LAN ports a Dual WAN port, but that would be straight EThernet. Are you suggesting a particular protocol or interface (i.e. 3GPP)? Also, to be competitive (price wise) it would be interesting to know how we can remain competitive by adding this? Do competitive boxes offer this built in, or do you need to buy an external router?
In the Wireless N, would it suffice to have an SBCS component (like we have Mobility Express today for G for the larger SKUs) that connects to and is configured as part of the suite?
Do you see much use for the 8/16 user SKU built in wireless capability?
DSPs: Can you provide some details as to what engineering formula you would like to see supported in terms of simultaneous connections of the different types of traffic that require transcoding?
Thanks for your feedback.
We are open to it and it is always a good time to provide it IMHO
SE Sales Channel U.S.
I can think of one place more memory is useful? IOS upgrades could be much easier and more reliable. Sure I can delete the current IOS image and then copy over the new image, but what if something happens during that process?
With the bugs I have encountered recently in IOS its useful to have more than one image loaded so that I can make a change the image easily.
In addition all of the time the engineers are spending working on reducing the flash memory footprint seems counter-productive to the evolution of the product.
The emphasis should be on new features, enhancements, and above all bug fixes rather than trying to save $2 in manufacturing costs using a 128MB flash instead of a 1G.
That is just my thoughts.
I'm not sure if it is what Steve was referring to, but to setup two WAN IP's on the UC500 you can follow this document:
That's pretty cool.
So you just go from the WAN interface to a swich and then from the switch to your ISP's. ?
And the failover would not be from one interface to an other but from one IP router to another?
Exactly. You could also (and I think this was your original question) take one of the switchports of the UC500 and put it in its own VLAN, to which you could assign an IP and effectively make it behave like a secondary WAN interface. Notice that if you are connecting this port to a cable modem, a cross over cable would be required.
Here is an example on how to create vlans, assign IP's and take care of all the NAT stuff:
So you would assign an external IP address to the VLAN that the FE port is a member of? That is the only way I see to have two ethernet ports with external IP's on the router.
Yes. You could also do "ip address dhcp" under that VLAN interface and have the system pull a DHCP IP. You also need to take into consideration NAT and firewall settings. We said it was doable, not easy :-)
Yeah I hear ya :)
We setup failover on an 1811 for a customer a while back. They had 2 WAN interfaces though on their router. Had to do route-maps and all that good stuff for NAT and PAT. Lots of fun.
Good to know that the same functionality can be accomplished though using a router that does not come from Cisco with 2 dedicated WAN ports. Never realized that the same could be accomplished by just using a VLan.