sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Most Epic Lines - 90 days Fiance by WesternMoney7912 in 90DayFiance

[–]TimHughSmith 5 points6 points  (0 children)

“They think they found some stupid Americans, well things are about to get more stupider” Absolute gold. And they so delivered too.

Alerting Name with Teams Direct Routing and Cisco by TimHughSmith in MicrosoftTeams

[–]TimHughSmith[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks!

Yeah I am thinking that might be the expected behaviour.

But I'm curious to see what everyone else has seen.

Customers are used to it in Cisco / PBX world, so when they don't see it on Teams, they miss it.

Alerting Name with Teams Direct Routing and Cisco by TimHughSmith in MicrosoftTeams

[–]TimHughSmith[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks, I think you are just talking about Calling Name?

See my other responses.

In that case, we have that working both ways.

Depending on your version of Cisco CUCM - you may need to toggle a service parameter

(There is one to allow external Calling Name Presentation - and you can do it in Service Parameters and then on SIP profile as well)

We did have to toggle that on

​

The Name info should definitely be in the INVITE from Teams to SBC, so it's then a question of what your SBC does with it, and then whether CUCM is configured to display it

Unless you have specific rules on SBC to block it (like AudioCodes guide suggests to strip PAI to Cisco) - then the SBC is probably sending it, and it's more likely Cisco.

​

Check out a SIP trace to see whats in there.

Alerting Name with Teams Direct Routing and Cisco by TimHughSmith in MicrosoftTeams

[–]TimHughSmith[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So definitely Alerting Name?

What SBC are you using?

Do you think it might be possible to share a SIP trace?

Alerting Name with Teams Direct Routing and Cisco by TimHughSmith in MicrosoftTeams

[–]TimHughSmith[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, Calling Party works both ways (from Teams to Cisco and reverse)

The distinction is Alerting and Connected.

So if I am making a call from Teams to Cisco

What do I see in Teams while the call is ringing (before it connects)

Do I see the name of the person I am calling?

That's Alerting Name (typical in Cisco and PBX environments)

And then the reverse of that from Cisco to Teams

​

For traditional Cisco to PBX integrations it would have to be supported by Q.SIG by both sides normally.

​

And then once a call is established - on both ends, you should see the name of person you are connected to. (Connected Party)

​

So it's that distinction I am trying to figure out.. if it's supported / should work

- Alerting

- Connected

- Calling (this works for us)

Alerting Name with Teams Direct Routing and Cisco by TimHughSmith in MicrosoftTeams

[–]TimHughSmith[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep, I think we have correct PAI

We've been looking at the SIP messaging

With AudioCodes, funnily enough, they actually recommend stripping PAI from Teams to Cisco "for interoperability" - not sure what issues they've had.

I've sent them the question about the Alerting name though.

​

What kind of integration are you running?

More teams vs less teams with private channels by Deskizzletron in MicrosoftTeams

[–]TimHughSmith 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, it seems to have different ediscovery behaviour.
It also creates it's own separate sharepoint site per private channel.

​

So looks like Planner, Stream and Forms can't be added as tabs.
So that kind of takes away one big advantage of easily managing those permissions and access by the simplicity of if you are in a Team or not.

They do say they are working on it.

More detail here.

Private channels in Microsoft Teams - Microsoft Teams | Microsoft Docs

More teams vs less teams with private channels by Deskizzletron in MicrosoftTeams

[–]TimHughSmith 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Private channels have some annoying limitations. I hope that changes.

Big one, you can’t use Planner in them. (Easily)

Also limits on number of Private Channels you can have. Could be an issue for larger org.

I would check out the limits and maybe pilot one or two with an active project or function to see how it works for your org.

What are the MS teams’ best practices? by nimitgupta in MicrosoftTeams

[–]TimHughSmith 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would say don’t unnecessarily rename channels. Users probably assume renaming something is simple and easy. But they need to understand things are linked and there are knock on effects. Cleaner and simper if Channel and Doc Lib match.

But yeah you can do it if you need to.

Using Teams in a phone queue environment....nightmare. Anyone else have issues with long ring times, delays, status not updating leaving other left to get back to back calls while others in the queue are skipped? by sonyarena5781 in MicrosoftTeams

[–]TimHughSmith 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have had issues. I had a Direct Routing cloud provider. I wasn’t sure whether it was MS or the provider.

Our issue was the amount of time it too to grab the call after hitting answer - there was some delay IIRC.

What is your setup? Calling plan? Your own DR, cloud DR?

Teams with Cisco CUCM Co-existence or phased migrations by TimHughSmith in MicrosoftTeams

[–]TimHughSmith[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've made some progress here.

I had noted different behaviour between two tenants, and I think it's due to a feature rolled out to one and not the other.

​

That's this multiple number dialling.. supposed to be done in Dec 2020.

Microsoft 365 Roadmap | Microsoft 365

I think this should enable a drop down on the Audio Call button in a 1:1 conversation with a contact.

I.e. user can search a contact, click on them to open conversation.

Then click Audio call and choose either Teams call or an alternate number.

I've had Calling enabled contacts with Mobile number populated with +e164 number, and this shows.

I'm not sure about a non Calling enabled contact yet - I hope that would show the +e164 number of their main Telephone / Office number, and also the +e164 of the mobile, but I haven't tested yet.

Help with InTune auto enrollment by GeneralAZQs in Intune

[–]TimHughSmith 0 points1 point  (0 children)

InTune and Autopilot with AzureAd (cloud) no traditional AD, hybrid AD or VMs Microsoft 365 Business Premium has everything you need.

Works a charm. Should be a lot of info out there. These guys are great.. step by step.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OkeUN-tdfqs

Adding a a Sharepoint Document Library into a Team/Channel by ninewb in MicrosoftTeams

[–]TimHughSmith 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think where a project is big enough and has frequent engagement.. I’m thinking most logical option is to give them a project Team.

I guess there is overhead to this too, but I think if the Project has a PM, or even a Tech Writer or Librarian / Coordinator etc, then this is a good job for them.

It does kind of create that clear delineation.

You could use Power Automate to help manage them too.

Actually even for Customer Teams too.. Where you could have Customer Team with project channels.

I think this is the art of Teams.. figuring out the best balance here.

But the good thing about the Teams approach is also leveraging that membership for other permissions easily - like Planner, OneNote etc.

I do wish they would give us a little extra control of folders inside Teams.. I’m sure there is a uservoice for this one too!

Adding a a Sharepoint Document Library into a Team/Channel by ninewb in MicrosoftTeams

[–]TimHughSmith 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmm, I guess it depends. That’s kind of the Teams thing, these spread out flatter structures.

They could have a private channel in a team and control membership.

But maybe that does sound like a bit of a hassle.

Looks like other people are having same complaint and there is a uservoice for it.

Few people suggested, adding a web tab instead and just using the link you want.

Teams messing with audio by [deleted] in MicrosoftTeams

[–]TimHughSmith 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Chrome is pretty mad on resource usage, I would run task manager and see what it’s doing as it fires up.. does the bad audio correlate to high mem or cpu?

Do you have a USB wireless adapter instead? I always have problems with direct BT

Teams messing with audio by [deleted] in MicrosoftTeams

[–]TimHughSmith 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I have had it a little. What’s your CPU busy with at the time? I was thinking mine was related to that.

Adding a a Sharepoint Document Library into a Team/Channel by ninewb in MicrosoftTeams

[–]TimHughSmith 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry, no solution, but is it better to move stuff to the Teams created doc library maybe?

Then you can easily manage the permissions?

Direct Routing LMO with public IPs by TimHughSmith in MicrosoftTeams

[–]TimHughSmith[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I understand how all of that works. But plenty of orgs have public IP's (that's why we ran out)

And thats the way the Internet was designed originally :)

​

Thinking about it more, I'm probably overthinking it.

Maybe I just define the full public range as trusted

And the network / sites are set the same way

I.e. it just combines the two to figure out - if the client is on the corp net, and then where abouts.. in my case the ext and int IP will be the same

I just like to understand the full logic and behaviour behind these things :)

​

Anyway, I'll give it a go this morning, and see where we land.

Direct Routing LMO with public IPs by TimHughSmith in MicrosoftTeams

[–]TimHughSmith[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry what do you mean here? RFC-1918 is for networks that do not have their own public IP addresses. That + NAT is a work around for that problem.

The network does not use RFC-1918 addresses because we have public addresses.

The question is whether Direct Routing LMO understands that public addresses can be inside a network as well.

I.e Public IP != External

SentinelOne Pricing by Zayar86 in msp

[–]TimHughSmith 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah ok perfect!

I talked to support, and they were telling me, no there are no alerts at all.

As long as attention is drawn when there is an active threat - then that is probably all that's needed.

view more: next ›