|
Home > Archive > Voice over IP Cisco > December 2005 > Directory Integration
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Directory Integration
|
|
| Corbett Enders 2005-12-21, 5:45 pm |
| Is there a general best practice around integration with Windows Active Directory? I'm thinking it is a good idea, but I'm wondering if anyone has precautions or reasons NOT to use this model?
Regards,
Corbett Enders.
| |
| Kevin Thorngren 2005-12-21, 5:45 pm |
| The CallManager design guide has some good information.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/voicesw/ps556/
products_implementation_design_guide_cha
pter09186a0080447505.html
Kevin
On Dec 20, 2005, at 2:28 PM, Corbett Enders wrote:
> Is there a general best practice around integration with Windows
> Active Directory?_ I'm thinking it is a good idea, but I'm wondering
> if anyone has precautions or reasons NOT to use this model?
>
> Regards,
> Corbett Enders.
> ________________________________________
_______
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
| |
| Voll, Scott 2005-12-21, 5:45 pm |
| Pros with AD integration. One username and password.
Con's: if your AD goes down, no one can log in.
You're very reliant on a stable AD. If you have lots of AD instability,
don't integrate.
Works fine for us.
Scott
________________________________
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Corbett Enders
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 11:29 AM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-voip] Directory Integration
Is there a general best practice around integration with Windows Active
Directory? I'm thinking it is a good idea, but I'm wondering if anyone
has precautions or reasons NOT to use this model?
Regards,
Corbett Enders.
| |
| Lelio Fulgenzi 2005-12-21, 5:45 pm |
| Directory IntegrationI really wish that there was more to offer with AD integration than just that. perhaps display name for a DN?
I also think AD integration gives you centralized PIN.
Chris Adams is on the list - Chris, can you remind me of that one problem you had where you had to populate a different field for something to work b/c the integration broke it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"I had a coffee and Coke at lunch today...and now, I've got more jitter than an
IP phone on a long haul 10base2 connection" LFJ
----- Original Message -----
From: Voll, Scott
To: Corbett Enders ; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 6:11 PM
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] Directory Integration
Pros with AD integration. One username and password.
Con's: if your AD goes down, no one can log in.
You're very reliant on a stable AD. If you have lots of AD instability, don't integrate.
Works fine for us.
Scott
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Corbett Enders
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 11:29 AM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-voip] Directory Integration
Is there a general best practice around integration with Windows Active Directory? I'm thinking it is a good idea, but I'm wondering if anyone has precautions or reasons NOT to use this model?
Regards,
Corbett Enders.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
| |
| Corbett Enders 2005-12-21, 5:45 pm |
| I read something to that effect regarding hiding accounts from the Call
Manager, by setting a custom field entry.
I have also noted an issue with regards to Exchange 2000, not sure yet
if it applies to Exchange 2003 (iNetOrgPerson class).
Slight twist on my original question: Have you performed the AD
Integration and regretted it? Did it break something you were trying to
do elsewhere? And on the flip side, did anyone not perform the AD
Integration and now wish that you had?
Pros: Single directory (the model everyone pitches, yet not often
used), Simplified Management (AD Users & Computers?)
Cons: Increased dependency on AD domain controllers, possible latency
for some of the call flow (lookups).
________________________________
From: Lelio Fulgenzi [mailto:lelio@uoguelph.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 4:15 PM
To: Voll, Scott; Corbett Enders; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Directory Integration
I really wish that there was more to offer with AD integration than just
that. perhaps display name for a DN?
I also think AD integration gives you centralized PIN.
Chris Adams is on the list - Chris, can you remind me of that one
problem you had where you had to populate a different field for
something to work b/c the integration broke it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"I had a coffee and Coke at lunch today...and now, I've got more jitter
than an
IP phone on a long haul 10base2 connection"
LFJ
----- Original Message -----
From: Voll, Scott <mailto:Scott.Voll@wesd.org>
To: Corbett Enders <mailto:cenders@homesbyavi.com> ;
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 6:11 PM
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] Directory Integration
Pros with AD integration. One username and password.
Con's: if your AD goes down, no one can log in.
You're very reliant on a stable AD. If you have lots of AD
instability, don't integrate.
Works fine for us.
Scott
________________________________
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Corbett Enders
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 11:29 AM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-voip] Directory Integration
Is there a general best practice around integration with Windows
Active Directory? I'm thinking it is a good idea, but I'm wondering if
anyone has precautions or reasons NOT to use this model?
Regards,
Corbett Enders.
________________________________
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
| |
| Ryan Ratliff 2005-12-22, 2:45 am |
| Biggest issues I see with AD integrations are referrals and DNS =
issues, and the two go hand-in-hand a lot of the time. The scripts =
we use for CCMAdmin and various web pages are sensitive to delays and =
referral hop count.
Lots of people have to point CM to the root of the domain and with AD =
2003 this leaves you to the whim of DNS for forestdnszones and =
domaindnszones lookups. Inevitably it seems if one DC in your forest =
is down that is the one that CM will pick out the ones returned by =
DNS to contact for your referral, and next thing you know it takes 5 =
minutes to search your global directory and EM just plain doesn't work.
Regarding the centralized PIN if you mean between CM and Unity this =
isn't true. You do get the advantage of synched CCMUser and AD =
passwords for users.
-Ryan
On Dec 21, 2005, at 6:31 PM, Corbett Enders wrote:
I read something to that effect regarding hiding accounts from the =
Call Manager, by setting a custom field entry.
I have also noted an issue with regards to Exchange 2000, not sure =
yet if it applies to Exchange 2003 (iNetOrgPerson class).
Slight twist on my original question: Have you performed the AD =
Integration and regretted it? Did it break something you were trying =
to do elsewhere? And on the flip side, did anyone not perform the AD =
Integration and now wish that you had?
Pros: Single directory (the model everyone pitches, yet not often =
used), Simplified Management (AD Users & Computers?)
Cons: Increased dependency on AD domain controllers, possible latency =
for some of the call flow (lookups).
From: Lelio Fulgenzi [mailto:lelio@uoguelph.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 4:15 PM
To: Voll, Scott; Corbett Enders; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Directory Integration
I really wish that there was more to offer with AD integration than =
just that. perhaps display name for a DN?
I also think AD integration gives you centralized PIN.
Chris Adams is on the list - Chris, can you remind me of that one =
problem you had where you had to populate a different field for =
something to work b/c the integration broke it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------ =
--------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"I had a coffee and Coke at lunch today...and now, I've got more =
jitter than an
IP phone on a long haul 10base2 =
connection" LFJ
----- Original Message -----
From: Voll, Scott
To: Corbett Enders ; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 6:11 PM
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] Directory Integration
Pros with AD integration. One username and password.
Con=92s: if your AD goes down, no one can log in.
You=92re very reliant on a stable AD. If you have lots of AD =
instability, don=92t integrate.
Works fine for us.
Scott
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-voip- =
bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Corbett Enders
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 11:29 AM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-voip] Directory Integration
Is there a general best practice around integration with Windows =
Active Directory? I'm thinking it is a good idea, but I'm wondering =
if anyone has precautions or reasons NOT to use this model?
Regards,
Corbett Enders.
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
| |
| Corbett Enders 2005-12-22, 2:45 am |
| In the case of adding users or removing users, I assume the AD
Integration offers some benefit there as well? Does the assignment of
user extensions, etc, all occur within AD Users and Computers or do we
still have to resort to the web interface (I think the guide spoke
somewhat to this).
We're a simple AD domain, and a single OU for our "normal" users
(non-admin type of accounts) so we'd probably point it at that.
But it sounds like I'm hearing that there aren't enough advantages
(reasons) to go with an Integrated design?
-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan Ratliff [mailto:rratliff@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 8:35 PM
To: Corbett Enders
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Directory Integration
Biggest issues I see with AD integrations are referrals and DNS issues,
and the two go hand-in-hand a lot of the time. The scripts we use for
CCMAdmin and various web pages are sensitive to delays and referral hop
count.
Lots of people have to point CM to the root of the domain and with AD
2003 this leaves you to the whim of DNS for forestdnszones and
domaindnszones lookups. Inevitably it seems if one DC in your forest is
down that is the one that CM will pick out the ones returned by DNS to
contact for your referral, and next thing you know it takes 5 minutes to
search your global directory and EM just plain doesn't work.
Regarding the centralized PIN if you mean between CM and Unity this
isn't true. You do get the advantage of synched CCMUser and AD
passwords for users.
-Ryan
On Dec 21, 2005, at 6:31 PM, Corbett Enders wrote:
I read something to that effect regarding hiding accounts from the Call
Manager, by setting a custom field entry.
I have also noted an issue with regards to Exchange 2000, not sure yet
if it applies to Exchange 2003 (iNetOrgPerson class).
Slight twist on my original question: Have you performed the AD
Integration and regretted it? Did it break something you were trying to
do elsewhere? And on the flip side, did anyone not perform the AD
Integration and now wish that you had?
Pros: Single directory (the model everyone pitches, yet not often
used), Simplified Management (AD Users & Computers?)
Cons: Increased dependency on AD domain controllers, possible latency
for some of the call flow (lookups).
From: Lelio Fulgenzi [mailto:lelio@uoguelph.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 4:15 PM
To: Voll, Scott; Corbett Enders; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Directory Integration
I really wish that there was more to offer with AD integration than just
that. perhaps display name for a DN?
I also think AD integration gives you centralized PIN.
Chris Adams is on the list - Chris, can you remind me of that one
problem you had where you had to populate a different field for
something to work b/c the integration broke it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"I had a coffee and Coke at lunch today...and now, I've got more jitter
than an IP phone on a long haul 10base2
connection" LFJ
----- Original Message -----
From: Voll, Scott
To: Corbett Enders ; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 6:11 PM
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] Directory Integration
Pros with AD integration. One username and password.
Con's: if your AD goes down, no one can log in.
You're very reliant on a stable AD. If you have lots of AD instability,
don't integrate.
Works fine for us.
Scott
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-voip-
bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Corbett Enders
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 11:29 AM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-voip] Directory Integration
Is there a general best practice around integration with Windows
Active Directory? I'm thinking it is a good idea, but I'm wondering
if anyone has precautions or reasons NOT to use this model?
Regards,
Corbett Enders.
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
| |
| Ryan Ratliff 2005-12-22, 2:45 am |
| By default you aren't allowed to add or delete users via CCMAdmin web
page with an AD integration.
If you look at a global directory page for a user everything above
user locale (except for pin) is pulled from AD. The first time you
modify a user via CCMAdmin it will create a profile and CCN-profile
in a sub-container of the cisco ou you create in AD. These profiles
are where all of the cisco specific information is stored.
-Ryan
On Dec 21, 2005, at 10:49 PM, Corbett Enders wrote:
In the case of adding users or removing users, I assume the AD
Integration offers some benefit there as well? Does the assignment of
user extensions, etc, all occur within AD Users and Computers or do we
still have to resort to the web interface (I think the guide spoke
somewhat to this).
We're a simple AD domain, and a single OU for our "normal" users
(non-admin type of accounts) so we'd probably point it at that.
But it sounds like I'm hearing that there aren't enough advantages
(reasons) to go with an Integrated design?
-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan Ratliff [mailto:rratliff@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 8:35 PM
To: Corbett Enders
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Directory Integration
Biggest issues I see with AD integrations are referrals and DNS issues,
and the two go hand-in-hand a lot of the time. The scripts we use for
CCMAdmin and various web pages are sensitive to delays and referral hop
count.
Lots of people have to point CM to the root of the domain and with AD
2003 this leaves you to the whim of DNS for forestdnszones and
domaindnszones lookups. Inevitably it seems if one DC in your forest is
down that is the one that CM will pick out the ones returned by DNS to
contact for your referral, and next thing you know it takes 5 minutes to
search your global directory and EM just plain doesn't work.
Regarding the centralized PIN if you mean between CM and Unity this
isn't true. You do get the advantage of synched CCMUser and AD
passwords for users.
-Ryan
On Dec 21, 2005, at 6:31 PM, Corbett Enders wrote:
I read something to that effect regarding hiding accounts from the Call
Manager, by setting a custom field entry.
I have also noted an issue with regards to Exchange 2000, not sure yet
if it applies to Exchange 2003 (iNetOrgPerson class).
Slight twist on my original question: Have you performed the AD
Integration and regretted it? Did it break something you were trying to
do elsewhere? And on the flip side, did anyone not perform the AD
Integration and now wish that you had?
Pros: Single directory (the model everyone pitches, yet not often
used), Simplified Management (AD Users & Computers?)
Cons: Increased dependency on AD domain controllers, possible latency
for some of the call flow (lookups).
From: Lelio Fulgenzi [mailto:lelio@uoguelph.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 4:15 PM
To: Voll, Scott; Corbett Enders; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Directory Integration
I really wish that there was more to offer with AD integration than just
that. perhaps display name for a DN?
I also think AD integration gives you centralized PIN.
Chris Adams is on the list - Chris, can you remind me of that one
problem you had where you had to populate a different field for
something to work b/c the integration broke it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"I had a coffee and Coke at lunch today...and now, I've got more jitter
than an IP phone on a long haul 10base2
connection" LFJ
----- Original Message -----
From: Voll, Scott
To: Corbett Enders ; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 6:11 PM
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] Directory Integration
Pros with AD integration. One username and password.
Con's: if your AD goes down, no one can log in.
You're very reliant on a stable AD. If you have lots of AD instability,
don't integrate.
Works fine for us.
Scott
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-voip-
bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Corbett Enders
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 11:29 AM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-voip] Directory Integration
Is there a general best practice around integration with Windows
Active Directory? I'm thinking it is a good idea, but I'm wondering
if anyone has precautions or reasons NOT to use this model?
Regards,
Corbett Enders.
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
| |
| Wes Sisk 2005-12-29, 5:46 pm |
| you can have CM integrated with the default DCD and use the
directorysearch from ipphoneServicesSDK to have a directory service
on the phone that searches your enterprise directory.
/Wes
On Dec 21, 2005, at 6:15 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi wrote:
I really wish that there was more to offer with AD integration than
just that. perhaps display name for a DN?
I also think AD integration gives you centralized PIN.
Chris Adams is on the list - Chris, can you remind me of that one
problem you had where you had to populate a different field for
something to work b/c the integration broke it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"I had a coffee and Coke at lunch today...and now, I've got more
jitter than an
IP phone on a long haul 10base2
connection" LFJ
----- Original Message -----
From: Voll, Scott
To: Corbett Enders ; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 6:11 PM
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] Directory Integration
Pros with AD integration. One username and password.
Con’s: if your AD goes down, no one can log in.
You’re very reliant on a stable AD. If you have lots of AD
instability, don’t integrate.
Works fine for us.
Scott
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-voip-
bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Corbett Enders
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 11:29 AM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-voip] Directory Integration
Is there a general best practice around integration with Windows
Active Directory? I'm thinking it is a good idea, but I'm wondering
if anyone has precautions or reasons NOT to use this model?
Regards,
Corbett Enders.
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
| |
| Wes Sisk 2005-12-29, 5:46 pm |
| take a look at CSCdz63349 in bug toolkit for instructions on how to
hide users.
/Wes
On Dec 21, 2005, at 6:31 PM, Corbett Enders wrote:
I read something to that effect regarding hiding accounts from the
Call Manager, by setting a custom field entry.
I have also noted an issue with regards to Exchange 2000, not sure
yet if it applies to Exchange 2003 (iNetOrgPerson class).
Slight twist on my original question: Have you performed the AD
Integration and regretted it? Did it break something you were trying
to do elsewhere? And on the flip side, did anyone not perform the AD
Integration and now wish that you had?
Pros: Single directory (the model everyone pitches, yet not often
used), Simplified Management (AD Users & Computers?)
Cons: Increased dependency on AD domain controllers, possible latency
for some of the call flow (lookups).
From: Lelio Fulgenzi [mailto:lelio@uoguelph.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 4:15 PM
To: Voll, Scott; Corbett Enders; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Directory Integration
I really wish that there was more to offer with AD integration than
just that. perhaps display name for a DN?
I also think AD integration gives you centralized PIN.
Chris Adams is on the list - Chris, can you remind me of that one
problem you had where you had to populate a different field for
something to work b/c the integration broke it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"I had a coffee and Coke at lunch today...and now, I've got more
jitter than an
IP phone on a long haul 10base2
connection" LFJ
----- Original Message -----
From: Voll, Scott
To: Corbett Enders ; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 6:11 PM
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] Directory Integration
Pros with AD integration. One username and password.
Con’s: if your AD goes down, no one can log in.
You’re very reliant on a stable AD. If you have lots of AD
instability, don’t integrate.
Works fine for us.
Scott
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-voip-
bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Corbett Enders
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 11:29 AM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-voip] Directory Integration
Is there a general best practice around integration with Windows
Active Directory? I'm thinking it is a good idea, but I'm wondering
if anyone has precautions or reasons NOT to use this model?
Regards,
Corbett Enders.
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
|
|
|
|
|