I’ve been working on getting Asterisk running on my RaqAst (that’s what I’m calling it) Cobalt RAQ3.  For various reasons mostly relating to getting chan_sccp to work properly I’ve gone from 1.2 to 1.4 to 1.2 to 1.4.  Yeah, it’s been frustrating.  Anyway, I had a comment left on this post detailing a method of using Asterisk just for voicemail with CME doing the phone management duties.  You might remember I had already managed to do that, again, referenced on that same post, but had failed to get MWI working.  MWI’s important for the WAF.  So, that solution got tossed and I went back to chan_sccp on Asterisk.

Well, the comment directed me to http://uc-b.blogspot.com/ where Andre has apparently gotten MWI working.  So, I’m going to give that a shot and I’ll report back how it works.

In the meantime I need to get Asterisk 1.4 running on RaqAst so I attempted to remove all vestiges of Asterisk 1.2 and install 1.4.  Ok, that seemed to work but every time I’d try to start Asterisk it would look like it was working but it wasn’t.  I’d get no indication it wasn’t starting but a “ps -aef | grep ast” showed nothing.  Also, there was nothing I could find in any logs.

Finally, I figured it out.  I hadn’t removed the 1.2 version of /etc/init.d/asterisk and the 1.4 install wasn’t overwriting it.  Apparently the 1.2 version won’t start 1.4 code.  Go figure.  Anyway, after cp’ing /usr/src/{ast-1.4}/contrib/init.d/rc.debian.asterisk over to /etc/init.d/asterisk everything was happy, as far as I can tell.

I haven’t started the configuration yet but that’s next, now that I have a running Asterisk.

I’m experienced with Cisco LWAPP enough to know it works pretty nicely.  There are some quirks to be sure but for almost every wireless implementation it’s the preferred solution.  It’s unfortunate then that both Cisco’s LWAPP and Aruba’s protocol (whatever that’s called) are closed protocols.  CAPWAP’s in the works and does seem to be making some progress as an open standard, despite some concerns about hidden patent coverage in some of the standard.

Still, you’d think the standard had progressed enough to start seeing some products.  Nope.  I just read that Cisco’s new Mobility product supports some portion of CAPWAP, which is interesting by itself.  But where are the open source controllers?  Controllers are really expensive!  It sure would be nice to have a cheaper solution for home, for instance.  This is one of those times I wish I was more of a programmer so I could just build it for myself.

I’ve already been finding it useful.  You might too!

CiscoBlog Forum

Just posted a rant in the comments over at GigaOm. It’s up!

I’ve ranted about this before. I just think there’s a disconnect between the executives and the local sales organization as to how the SMB space is currently handled. I’m not talking products line but rather the actual servicing of customer needs and providing effective support to Partners.

Regarding Om’s survey. I don’t think Linksys should go away. What I do think should happen is to approach the SMB space from a Cisco branding perspective differently. Establish a different sales relationship with SMB Partners and customers than the one that’s currently in place.

A couple of years ago I went through a couple of iterations of CME to Asterisk integration. Since then we’ve been running fairly reliably with the Cisco 1760 router behaving purely as a SIP based gateway and Asterisk managing everything else. I’ve run our Cisco phones as SCCP using the chan_sccp on Asterisk.

Due to some recent purchases and the fact that I don’t have ACPI figured out on the laptop Asterisk is running on, I’ve decided to change the configuration a bit. I need the memory and the charger from that laptop so that version of Asterisk has got to go.

What I’ll be doing is going back to the 1760 as CME and not just the voice gateway. There was always something a little funky about chan_sccp on Asterisk so having the call control back in the hands of Cisco should work better. In trying to get to the most current version of CME on the 1760 I’ve discovered something. I have 96/32 for the memory/flash and the “recommended” configuration is 128/64 for CME4.0 and later. As far as I can tell CME4.2 isn’t supported on the 1760 at all. I was tempted to try it but that IOS version wasn’t available and the T train doesn’t seem to have progressed enough to make it by with that alone. So, I tried CME4.1 since 12.4(15)T is available for the 1760. It works! So far! I’ve only attached a single phone to it and there was no way I could copy the entire CME installation over. If I had a diverse mix of phones I’d be out of flash space but I only needed the files for the 7940/60 and the 7920 so it fits. Barely.

I spent the better part of last night getting CME configured again on the 1760. Phone registers, no problem. I set up AsteriskNow virtually and connected an IAX softphone to it. Also, no problem. After some tweaking of the Asterisk config and reminding myself how context’s work I was able to make calls back and forth between a 7940 registered to CME and the IAX softphone. I then got the voicemail button working on the 7940. Also, not a problem.

Now I’m stuck. I can’t get the MWI to work. Voicemail works, no problem. Just doesn’t seem to be sending the MWI to the CME. Even running a debug on the CME shows no activity related to the MWI. So, I’ve got something misconfigured on Asterisk.

I’ll continue to poke at the MWI problem. Once I have a working config I’ll post the details so maybe someone else can benefit from this.

Tags: CiscoRouting and Switching, Networking, VoIP

Ok, I get it. Cisco’s long been seen as being a bit stodgy, especially when it comes to new product announcements. So, it was with great interest that I wanted to watch this self titled “viral marketing” campaign kick off today. Can someone call their own campaign “viral”. Or rather, calling it that doesn’t make it so, does it.

Anyway, the big announcement that warranted this interesting approach for Cisco? Was it something with Voice? Video perhaps? A cheap Teleprescence offering? No…maybe something cool from the Linksys purchase or SA? No. It was a big router.

Now, this is a cool box, don’t get me wrong. Crazy fast, modular software, upgradeable features packages. All very cool. And I’m sure this new ASR will filter down to replace the ISR at some point. Right now, by Cisco’s own admission it’s targeted between the 7200 and the 7600 series. That puts it squarely in the really big Enterprise or Service Provider market.

How big do you think that target is? In dollar terms, probably pretty big. Perhaps this swings things back away from Juniper a little.

I have to wonder though, why on earth would they choose to do this new direction for a marketing campaign for something like this? Save the cool marketing campaigns for the younger folks that’ll appreciate it. No doubt there are some younger CCIE’s that’ll be a part of buying these boxes. Somehow, I think the message is lost on the CEO/CIO’s out there that are signing the checks for these boxes.

It sure is a good thing Cisco makes really good equipment.

Discovered tonight that Cisco’s Anyconnect SSL VPN client when used in Vista must be doing something with TLS instead of pure SSL.  How do I know this?

Had a Vista PC that could log into one ASA just fine but would always bomb on another.  It would fail with something like the “SSL Engine has failed”.  I finally discovered the difference between the ASA’s.

The failing one had “ssl server-version sslv3″.  This effectively limited it to SSLv2 startup and SSLv3 running.  Or the other way around, can’t remember.  By switching it to “ssl server-version all” it began working.  There’s an option for making it TLS only as well but I don’t know if that would break the XP installations out there.

Via CiscoBlog.com I’ve discovered PuttyCM. This act’s as a wrapper for putty and gives you session management and tabs. It can do a bunch of other cool tricks like tiled windows and encryption of the configuration database. It’s not quite as advanced as SecureCRT I think but it does provide some level of command running during log in.

…but not entirely.  Turns out the 180 day waiting period for tests is only if you pass.  That makes more sense as the only good reason you’d have for going back right away is to braindump.

Ok, so maybe I jumped the gun a bit.

Still, there’s a reason I would consider Cisco actually pulling a stunt like that.  Despite the lip service to SMB’s they continue to treat their small integrators like crap.  I still stand by my feelings on this.

I certainly hope this isn’t the case.  If it turns out to be wrong I’ll post an apology.  However, in a recent post on CiscoBlog there’s a troubling comment.  The post itself shows how silly Cisco can be about certain things.  It’s essentially talking about Cisco taking your picture when you take an exam.  Ok, no big deal.  Like DRM it only affects the honest people, but our pictures are already taken in so many other contexts, who cares if there’s another one.

No, the really troubling thing is from one of the comments.  Cisco might now be forcing a 180 day waiting period before retaking the same (number based) test if you fail it.  That’s 6 months for the mathematically challenged.  I can only hope those are calendar days.

This can’t possibly be true.  If it is, it would have dire consequences.  Quite often careers hinge on the ability to get certified.  Having to wait 6 months to try again, at the risk of failing again, is frightening.  Talk about a chilling affect.

So, how does this hurt small businesses?  SMB’s are largely served by small integrators.  We’re talking about the Premier Partners, not Silver and Gold.  Each level has certification requirements and recently Cisco tightened up the ability to have people cover multiple tracks.  So, if you only want to be Premier it’s not as big a deal.  You only need 2 or 3 separate individuals.  I can’t remember which.  However, if you want to also be Unified Communications certified, or Advanced Wireless you then need other individuals to support those roles.  Officially it’s a 2×2 rule.  Any one person can support 2 roles in any 2 specializations.  Premier, or “Foundation” is considering a specialization.  You can imagine in a small company you start to run out of people to fill roles.

Now imagine that the partner re-cert deadline is approaching.  Engineers start going to take tests and fail them the first time out.  Wait 6 months?  The partner cert expires because you don’t have certified bodies?  You have to start the process all over again once everyone passes certifications?

Cisco keeps talking about how they’ve not addressed the SMB space effectively and how they want to change that.  Their actions tell a different story.  What I can’t figure out is if they think the SMB’s will just be happy paying large integrator prices after they force all of the SMB integrators out of the market.  And do they really think they can get away with that when their competitors aren’t treating SMB integrators the same way?