*sigh* I really wish I could have convinced folks. We couldve avoided all this and been able to buy the right kinds of phones. But just as I was dealing with an on-prem CUCM earlier, now Im stuck with a cloud version and in both cases these #$%^& phones.
I tell ya, the non-Cisco VoIP world could do some damage if they did support these things. I mean, truth is, the suits only care about appearances anyway. So if they have a Cisco phone on their desk, most likely could care less if you had squirrels running in cages on the backend doing the actual work.
Many years ago, when we first got our CUCM, I was still working with Asterisk (pre-FreeSWITCH days), and I got things to the point where I had a TFTP server setup, had the config files formatted, had phones registering, and was able to do basic things. But it was very much under the hood, doing things via CLI, etc. And even now, sounds like nothing has changed much. I mean, youre doing similar things, then SSHing in to get at the
configs/debug logs, etc. But until theres clean UI support where you can provision one of these like you can some of the Yealink or Polycom units in Kazoo (and I have to say, I really like the new Monster UI vs. the Kazoo UI for basic PBX setup), theres not much chance of going in and replacing CUCM backends in places where currently theres maybe CUCM Express running on a router, or CUCM Business Ed., let alone going after large
Speaking of UIs, I sent an email several days ago to the same guys who expressed frustration yesterday, showing them the Web UI of CUCM 8.0.x vs. UCCaaS 9.1.x (keeping in mind that the 6-mo. tick tock release cycle of Cisco CUCM went 8.0, then 8.1, 8.5, 8.6, 9.0, 9.1, 10.0, 10.5, and the recently announced 11.0), so basically 4 major revs over several years& and you couldnt tell them apart other than the version # listed. Then I sho
screenshots of the Kazoo UI vs. the new Monster UI, and thats just in the past 2 years.
Just shows you how much faster the non-Cisco VoIP world is moving. Dont get me wrong. Im all for leaving a UI alone if its good, as Im no fan of change for changes sake (you listening, MS Office devs?). But CUCMs Web UI blows.
Its overly complicated for smaller institutions. I mean, if youre a huge corp. with dedicated VoIP staff, then by all means look at CUCM with its clustering ability, etc., as standalone Asterisk and FreeSWITCH arent really built for that. But in my mind you really need to have somewhere in excess of 2K endpoints before you have to go that route.
And Kazoo looks to be architected to handle those large installations well, using Kamailio and FreeSWITCH for their respective strengths, among other things, and using Erlang as the glue. (As a language wonk, I appreciate the language choice, as Erlang was built for this kind of thing, though admittedly I have yet to buckle down and wrap my head around that language& functional languages are a different breed.)
Hey, totally different question for the peanut gallery: is anyone integrating their LDAP/Active Directory into their setups, and if so, how? Just as a corporate directory listing type setup? Full on integration where you deifne your users in LDAP/AD and tie it into your PBX?
Its a long story, but a shorter version is that I ask because yet another place where things have fallen down in the UCCaaS setup is the whole notion fo multi-tenancy. They tried playing games in that regard by giving all devices unique, fake DIDs of a pattern (e.g., 101-101-xxxx for site 1, then 101-102-xxxx for site 2, etc.) as well as mapping local extensions to them. Then they setup calling partitions/etc. so phones of pattern1 dial
a local extension only reached other phones within that pattern, etc. But its a cludge at best. And it doesnt account for things like user accounts, voicemail, etc. Then it turned out that while CUCM can sync to mutiple LDAP/AD stores, it can only sync to ONE for authentication purposes. So if youre pimping this product as a multi-tenant solution, youre in for a world of hurt. If you have two clients, each with their own LDA
store, and each has a John Smith, they canot both have the same username. And so on.
Thus far, every issue has been tackled with what I call a nails and duct tape solution. And this is because CUCM was clearly never architected to be truly multi-tenant. If you setup a standalone FreeSWITCH server, having multiple clients with the same local extensions is not an issue, and ditto for Kazoo. Clients are truly separated. But anyway, I digress. I was just curious if anyone is using either the hosted solution or running their
Kazoo cluster, and does anything with directory integration.