Some of the people I work with have been a real pain in the butt about the music on hold that is on our Call Manager, I asked a Cisco rep if they had any recommended devices to use for the Music on Hold server and the answer that I received was, “CallManager ships with a music-on-hold CD, which contains licensed music. Do you have that CD?” So, as far as I have been able to tell, there are no real solutions that you can just plug into the Call Manager, and the reps who say they have something either can’t seem to call us back or figure out if it will work or not. So, I decided to install a sound card and if I could something to work myself. This is what the FAQ says about the sound card, not sure when this was last updated:
What sound cards can be used with the Music On Hold server?
A. The media convergence servers (MCSs) do not ship with sound cards. If you choose to use a sound card, you need to purchase it separately. The Sound Blaster protocol control information (PCI) 16 sound card has been tested and is recommended for use with the Cisco MCS 7835 and MCS 7835-1000. The Cisco MCS7825-800 requires a PCI 2.2 card. Therefore, no recommended or supported sound card exists for this server model.
So, I tried a couple Sound Blaster sound cards and what do you know, both work and now I can play anything I want through the MOH server. Both of our MCS’ are 7835′s.
I have had a Sound Blaster Live! sb0200 and sb0410 both working in a Cisco Call Manager 4.2 running on an MCS 7835, and currently I have a laptop plugged into the line in port on the sound card and am just playing all of the wav files from the Cisco MOH CD. We will see if the “powers that be” like it or not, as they have not liked anything that I have tried so far, and it would be a lot easier on me if they could give me an idea of what they wanted it to play.
I know a laptop is overkill, but it will work until they decide on something. I know this is going to be a duh huh moment for some of you, but it hadn’t even occurred to me until it happened to me. I had been trying to get them to work while using a remote desktop connection, and while it showed me that the sound card was installed and working properly, under the Sounds and Multimedia Properties icon in control panel, it would say No Playback Device, No Recording Devices, etc. I discovered by accident that it was working perfectly when I replaced the sound card with another and was configuring it locally. Changing the options on the remote desktop connection did not change anything either. Not sure why the configuration wouldn’t look the same, but, I am sure it’s probably some kind of feature.
Another caveat, the people who set up the Call Manager setup both the publisher and the subscriber as MOH servers, the server I originally installed the sound card in was the second one listed under the MOH servers. I remembered reading that the first server was the default, or some similar wording, so I moved the sound card to the first server on the list and it started working. Some things you have to learn the hard way I guess.
Cisco announced this week that their Cisco Unified CallManager and Cisco Unified Presence Servers are vulnerable to remote attacks by using specially crafted ICMP and UDP packets. Cisco has already released patches for them, here.
CallManager servers, which process VoIP calls on a network, can be crashed by sending attack traffic to TCP ports 2000 or 2443 to the server; these ports are used by Cisco’s proprietary call control protocols ? Skinny Call Control Protocol (SCCP, or “Skinny”) and Secure SCCP. This vulnerability exists in CallManager versions 3.x, 4.x and 5.0 (CUCM 6.0, the latest version (announced this month), is not affected, nor is the Presence Server).
Cisco says CallManager and the Presence Server are affected by attacks involving floods of ICMP Echo Requests (pings), or specially crafted UDP packets. The ping-flood vulnerability, which affects only CallManager 5.0 and Presence Server 1.x, could be used to crash call-processing or presence services on the respective servers.
The UDP vulnerability affects the IPSec Manager Service on CallManager and Presence Server, which uses UDP Port 8500. With this less severe vulnerability, an attack could not stop calls from being placed or received on a Cisco VoIP network, but could cause the loss of some features, such as the ability to forward calls or deploy configuration changes to clusters of CallManager and Presence Servers. Source: Cisco VoIP and presence servers vulnerable to new attacks
If you don’t want to load the patches yet, you can block these things at your router on the outside connections to your networks.
Permit TCP Port 2000 (SCCP) and TCP Port 2443 (Secure SCCP) to CallManager systems only from VoIP endpoints.
ICMP Echo Requests, Type 8, should be blocked for CallManager and Presence Server systems (although this could affect network management applications and troubleshooting).
UDP Port 8500 for IPSec Manager should be permitted only between CallManager/Presence Server systems configured in a cluster deployment.
The Register says,
CallManager versions 3.3, 4.1, 4.2 and 5.0, as well as Presence Server version 1.0, are affected by a number of security bugs. The vulnerabilities involve unspecified errors in the handling of large amounts of ICMP Echo packets and within IPSec Manager service, both of which might be used to launch denial of service attacks against vulnerable Cisco Unified CallManager and Presence Server software installations.
A separate bug means that CallManager software PBX systems might be taken down by port scanning. Source: Cisco wraps up against VoIP DoS bugs
Here are some great CallManager Tips from a word document I found on Cisco’s site, here, I have posted some of the ones I needed here, hit the Word doc for the rest.
Time Synchronization – Time synchronization is simply making sure that all the participating CallManager servers and network devices have the same exact time.
All the CallManager servers can be time-synched using the Network Time Protocol (NTP). When you synchronize the time on all involved servers, all the trace files are time stamped the same. When trace files are collected for analysis, you can follow the true series of call processing events with accuracy.
In addition to CallManager servers, you should ensure all network devices such as switches, routers, and voice gateways are synchronized to the same time source as the CallManager servers. This ensures consistent timestamps regardless of which device you are looking at.
IP Phone Tips
IP Phone Won’t Register – Skinny client registration problems are usually caused by a misconfiguration on CallManager, the DHCP server, one or more network devices, or the IP phone itself. Follow these steps when you encounter an IP phone that doesn?t register properly with CallManager:
Step 1 Check for inline power issues.
Step 2 Check IP addressing and DHCP.
Step 3 Check for IP network connectivity.
Step 4 Check for Trivial File Transfer Protocol (TFTP) problems.
Step 5 Check for CallManager issues.
If you have checked for inline power issues and verified that the IP Phone has the correct information, but it still doesn?t register, you need to do some additional investigating. Here are some common reasons why registration fails at this point:
The CallManager service is not running.
The IP Phone can?t reach CallManager. Try to ping the IP Phone from the CallManager server it is trying to register. This will confirm bi-directional IP connectivity.
If NAT, firewalls, or access lists are in use, be sure to check there as well to make sure that traffic is not being blocked, thus preventing proper communication. Skinny devices use TCP port 2000 to register with CallManager.
If the IP Phone must resolve the CallManager name to register, a failure could occur if the DNS server is inaccessible or the DNS entry is incorrect. Generally it is a good idea not to rely on DNS at all. To use IP addresses instead of DNS names, configure the servers in the cluster by IP address in CallManager Administration (System > Server).
The IP Phone firmware load specified by CallManager is not in the TFTP path. If the IP Phone load currently running on the phone is not compatible with the CallManager the phone is trying to register to, the registration might fail. Ensure that the IP Phone is running the firmware version specified in CallManager Administration (System > Device Defaults).
If the IP Phone has never been entered into the CallManager database via CallManager Administration, CallManager does not allow that phone to register unless auto-registration is enabled. Auto-registration does not work unless it has available directory numbers to provide the registering IP Phone a DN. If the IP phone is not configured in CallManager Administration and auto-registration is not enabled or CallManager has run out of DNs, the phone displays ?Registration Rejected.?
Voice Quality Tips
Working with Low-Speed Links – Jitter is more likely to occur on low-speed links because even a single packet in the queue on a low-speed link can dramatically affect the amount of time a voice packet needs to wait in the queue before being transmitted. Jitter can be an even bigger problem if you do not have priority queuing (that is, Low Latency Queuing [LLQ]) enabled on your WAN connections or if you have it misconfigured. It is essential that voice traffic get absolute priority over any data traffic. For more information on using LLQ to prioritize voice samples over data, refer to the Cisco IP Telephony QoS Design Guide, available on Cisco.com (search for ?Cisco IP Telephony QoS Design Guide?) or at the following link: here.
If you are seeing high amounts of jitter over a low-speed link, it?s quite likely that improperly configured LFI is the problem. This is assuming that you are not oversubscribing the WAN link with more voice traffic than what you are prioritizing with your QoS policy. For more information on how to configure LFI, refer to the Cisco IP Telephony QoS Design Guide.
One common cause of drops in an Ethernet environment is a duplex mismatch. Check all the switch ports through which a given call must travel, and ensure that there are no alignment or frame check sequence (FCS) errors. Alignment and FCS errors are usually a sign of a duplex mismatch?that is, when one side of a connection is set to full duplex and the other is at half duplex. To check for duplex mismatches, look at each link between the two endpoints experiencing packet loss and check to make sure the speed and duplex settings match on either side. For more information about troubleshooting duplex mismatches, refer to the Cisco document ?Configuring and Troubleshooting Ethernet 10/100/1000Mb Half/Full Duplex Auto-Negotiation? at the following URL: www.cisco.com/warp/public/473/3.html
Troubleshooting Problems with One-Way or No-Way Audio
One-way audio and no audio at all (no-way audio) are problems that are fairly common during a new IP telephony network installation. The majority of these problems are caused by misconfigurations. For one-way audio problems, always pay attention to which direction the one-way audio is occurring. For no audio in either direction, the troubleshooting methodology is the same. You might need to repeat the procedure for each direction of audio, but more likely you will find the source of the problem when trying to troubleshoot one direction. There are various steps you can take to troubleshoot a one-way/no-way audio problem:
Verify bidirectional IP connectivity
If using an H.323 gateway, make sure you have voice rtp send-recv configured
Check for NAT or firewall restrictions
No Ringback on an IP Phone When Calling the PSTN
One common problem is lack of ringback tone when dialing out to the PSTN from an IP phone. The problem in this scenario is that CallManager automatically cuts through audio to the H.323 gateway as soon as the logical channel signaling is complete. The problem arises because the alerting message sent by the PSTN does not contain a progress indicator indicating that in-band information is available. Typically in an end-to-end ISDN environment, the end device is responsible for locally generating ringback upon receiving an alerting message. Unfortunately, CallManager does not operate this way. It relies on inband ringback when calling out an H.323 gateway. To fix this problem, configure progress_ind alert enable 8 under the POTS dial peer that gets matched for this call?s outbound call leg. For some reason, this command is hidden in some versions of Cisco IOS software, but if you enter it, the gateway accepts it, and it shows up in your configuration.
As soon as this is configured, Cisco IOS Software treats an alerting message as if it came in with a progress indicator of 8. A progress indicator of 8 means that in-band information is available, so the gateway cuts through audio upon receiving an alerting message. There are several other progress indicator values (detailed in Chapter 6 of Troubleshooting Cisco IP Telephony).
No Ringback on a PSTN Phone When Calling an IP Phone
When a Cisco IOS gateway receives a setup message without a progress indicator, it does not play ringback toward the PSTN. This is because the gateway assumes that the PSTN is end-to-end ISDN and therefore handles playing ringback to the originating device upon receiving the alerting message. If the network is not end-to-end ISDN, the setup message should arrive with a progress indicator of 3, indicating that the origination address is non-ISDN. In the case of a failure, the device on the PSTN does not send a progress indicator.
To resolve this problem, you need to configure the gateway to play ringback toward the PSTN regardless of the progress indicator in the setup message. To accomplish this, configure progress_ind setup enable 3 on the VoIP dial peer that is being matched for this inbound call. Note that even though you are trying to fix a problem with ringback on the POTS side, this parameter must be configured on the VoIP dial peer. If you have multiple VoIP dial peers that might be matched, be sure to put the command under all of them.
No Ringback When Transferring a Call
Another common ringback problem is the lack of ringback toward the PSTN user when an IP phone user transfers a call to another phone. The reason for this is a limitation of the H.323 protocol as it is implemented on the gateways and in Cisco IOS.
To get around this limitation, a solution is in place as of Cisco IOS Software Release 12.2(3) and later. This solution also requires CallManager 3.0(8) or later. To get it to work, make sure you are running the correct version of Cisco IOS Software, and make sure the ToSendH225UserInfoMsg service parameter is set to True. In CallManager 3.2(3) and later, this service parameter accepts a numeric value of 0, 1, or 2 instead of True or False.
These values mean the following:
0?Do not send any progress tone information.
1?Use the H225UserInfo message to send progress tone information.
2?Use the H225Info message to send progress tone information.
CallManager versions prior to 3.2(3) do not understand receiving these messages in the H225Info message, so for backward compatibility with CallManager clusters prior to 3.2(3), use a value of 1 (True). Otherwise, choose a value of 2. As long as you have met these conditions, you should get ringback on transfer.
Media Resource Tips
One common reason for both conferencing and transcoding problems is a lack of DSP resources to perform the required function. This could occur either because you have run out of conference bridge or transcoder resources or because the device that requires the resource does not have any available in the MRGL it has been configured with.
Failures to allocate a media resource can be seen in CCM traces and are also logged in PerfMon and RTMT by the OutOfResources counters for Music on Hold, Transcoder, and Conference Bridge in the Cisco CallManager performance object.
Cisco Systems has made a couple weird acquisitions lately, they had purchased FiveAcross, a social networking provider, and now they are buying a “failed” social network, Tribe.net, who was once being considered for purchase by NBC. Everyone’s reaction seems to be, WTF, what were they thinking. Now, I am not sure what they are planning on doing with it, but as big and as powerful as Cisco is and has been, why couldn’t they pull something off with it? Sure, they don’t have the type of crowd you would expect to be able to pull into a social network, but, they could create some private ones specifically for businesses, or education systems or even free ones for everyone to use, I don’t think it would matter who is pushing it as long as it is good, usable and appeals to the people they are trying to attract to it.
Pete Cashmore from Mashable says,
The NYTimes calls the match up of a networking company and a dead community site a ?curious pairing?, which is understating it a little. We thought it slightly odd when Cisco bought up a white label social networking provider. But with a bit of explanation it made sense. Cisco wanted to provide the technology to its corporate clients – and more Internet traffic means more traffic over Cisco?s routers, as VentureBeat eloquently explained. Source: WTF is Cisco Doing?
Om Malik from Gigaom says,
News flash for Cisco: This social software thing ? it is too marginal, doesn?t make money and can?t make you cool. Stick to what you know best – plumbing hardware ?sell tons of it, make money, and learn to live with the fact that you are rich and old school.
Don?t make me bring up pesky issues like: that in last ten months the only optical contract you have announced was an agreement with National Lambda Rail, and we can?t take that seriously, because as NLR annual report notes: the equipment was ?provided under very favorable pricing by NLR?s founding member, Cisco Systems.? Source: Cisco?s wrong bet on Social Networks
Marc Anderseen, one of the original browsers, Mosaic Netscape, says, ?The idea that Cisco is going to be a force in social networking is about as plausible as Ning being a force in optical switches,? but what does he know about optical switches, when Cisco purchases something, it usually includes their employees, and makes them part of their hive. I say, lets see what they do and what happens before we say they are crazy.
Wait, I could prove myself somewhat right before I finish writing this, Techcrunch is reporting on this also, and maybe with a little more insider information.
But now the New York Times is reporting that the assets of the eight person company have been acquired by Cisco. This follows their acquisition of Five Across, a social networking infrastructure service, two weeks ago. The hope is to use the two company?s technology to help Cisco?s corporate clients build their own social networks, so it isn?t clear whether or not the Tribe service itself will live on.
The demand is clearly there, as seen by Reuters? announcement today that they?re looking to build their own Myspace clone, for financial types. Everyone, it seems, wants their very own social network these days. Source: Tribe Gets Acquired, For Real This Time
I love it when I am semi right.
Cisco has posted a notice on three vulnerabilities they just patched concerning routers and switches running their Cisco IOS or Cisco IOS XR software, that could enable someone to craft an IP option Denial of Service (DoS) attack. You can view all of Cisco’s security advisories here Cisco Security Advisories and Notices. Here is a quote from the most dangerous flaw,
Cisco routers and switches running Cisco IOS or Cisco IOS XR software may be vulnerable to a remotely exploitable crafted IP option Denial of Service (DoS) attack. Exploitation of the vulnerability may potentially allow for arbitrary code execution. The vulnerability may be exploited after processing an Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) packet, Protocol Independent Multicast version 2 (PIMv2) packet, Pragmatic General Multicast (PGM) packet, or URL Rendezvous Directory (URD) packet containing a specific crafted IP option in the packet’s IP header. No other IP protocols are affected by this issue.
To determine the software running on a Cisco product, log in to the device and issue the show version command to display the system banner. Cisco IOS software will identify itself as “Internetwork Operating System Software” or simply “IOS”. On the next line of output, the image name will be displayed between parentheses, followed by “Version” and the IOS release name. Cisco IOS XR software will identify itself as “Cisco IOS XR Software” followed by “Version” and the version number. Other Cisco devices will not have the show version command or will give different output. Source: Cisco Security Advisory: Crafted IP Option Vulnerability
Sans Internet Storm Center has released an article describing all three,
Crafted TCP Packet can cause denial of service (cisco-sa-20070124-crafted-tcp)
A remotely-exploitable memory leak in the Cisco IOS software could lead to a denial of service condition. This vulnerability applies to much of the IOS 12.0, 12.1 and 12.2 code base.
Crafted IP Option vulnerability (cisco-sa-20070124-crafted-ip-option)
By sending certain ICMP, PIMv2, PGM or URD packets with a specific IP option set to a Cisco IOS or IOS XR device, an attacker could cause the device to reload or even execute arbitrary code. This applies to a wide variety of releases.
IPv6 Routing Header vulnerability (cisco-sa-20070124-IOS-IPv6)
Certain crafted IPv6 Type 0 routing headers could crash a device running IOS. Source: Cisco vulnerabilities
Cisco has released Applied Intelligence Response bulletins for each vulnerability, which could help you detect someone trying to exploit these vulnerabilities.
As Brian Krebs of Security Fix said, it’s time to reboot the Internet again,
Cisco Systems Inc., the company whose hardware routers are responsible for handling the majority of the world’s Internet traffic, today issued patches to fix at least three very serious security holes in its products. This is generally not something that the average user needs to worry about, but I’m blogging on it because the flaws do have the potential to cause some problems that Internet users could experience in a very real way (i.e. e-mail and Internet access temporarily goes bye-bye).
Most Internet service providers will stagger the installation of these patches so as not to disrupt customers’ online connectivity, but one of these flaws appears to be so easy to exploit that if the bad guys figure out how before ISP get around to patching then we could very likely see portions of the Internet go dark soon. source: Time to Reboot the Internet Again
Ah, such is the Internet, if it wasn’t for security vulnerabilities all we’d have left to talk about would be which platform is better, Windows, Linux or OS X.
I have been wondering why exactly Apple went ahead without an agreement with Cisco Systems and used the iPhone name for their new smart phone. They have been talking to Cisco about the name since 2001, so you know they have a plan with or without Cisco’s agreement. Could it be, they want Cisco to agree after they have already decided to use the name, as some sort of macho thing so everybody can see that Cisco gave in? I doubt it, but you never know, Steve Jobs has never cared who he took on in his past battles, so maybe he needs another notch for his belt. More likely it has to do with he fact that Cisco never REALLY tried to protect their copyright, since there are at least two other devices using the name and a couple more patent requests for it, if I am reading correctly. And, as they said in the keynote, they are the first company to use the iPhone name for an actual cell phone, Cisco’s is for a line of internet phones, and as one of the reasons for trademarks is to prevent consumer confusion, most probably would not be confused by both companies having an iPhone product, since they are certainly different.
Another tactic is what News.com called the McDefense strategy, where they have a family of trademarks, such as everything beginning with an i, iPhone, iPod, iMac, iTV, etc, etc. Which could explain some of the lawsuits they threatened recently to some iPod accessory makers.
Apple can also argue that it owns a “family” of trademarks related to the iPhone, said Craig Mende, a lawyer with trademark and copyright firm Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu in New York. For example, the iPod, iTunes, iMac, iWork and iLife products all bear a strong association with Apple, so the company could argue that consumers would naturally associate the iPhone with Apple.
The most famous example of this strategy is used by McDonalds, which has successfully argued that any other company that attached “Mc” to their product, like a McPhone, is creating consumer confusion that the McPhone is a McDonald’s product. Even though you really shouldn’t eat a phone, consumers would automatically associate McDonald’s with anything using the “Mc” prefix, Mende said. Source: How Apple could fight Cisco
But, even in that case, just adding an “i” to something is not enough to give it a family grouping, and others are doing the same thing, Sony uses a technology called iLink, there is an iBoat Store, the Soundcast iCast and the Klipsch iGroove, to name a few. Plus, Cisco really hadn’t used the name until last year, when it actually changed the names of the Linksys CIT200 and the Linksys CIT310 to iPhones, and, personally, I don’t recall seeing an iPhone in the available options when we were installing a Cisco VOIP network last year. I will have to check and see if we still have the catalog, or maybe it was a PDF, that we used to look at the available phones.
There are many different ways Apple could get to use the iPhone, and, all of the buzz from his keynote will certainly help. Look at how much coverage they got from announcing the iPhone, you would think Jobs just turned water into wine, but such is the reaction to most Apple fanatics, not that it is bad, I wish I liked a company as well as people like Apple, but I don’t. If you ask the average person on the street who makes the iPhone they will say Apple more than likely, and if you ask who owns the trademark tot he iPhone? People like me and people who read my blog and other blogs will know who owns the trademark, but most people will say Apple does, more than likely, and if you tell them Cisco is making some iPhone products? They will probably think Cisco is infringing on Apple or that they are making “clone” iPhones, or knockoffs. Who will the likely winner be? Apple more than likely.
Added: Just saw this post, about how a company, Ocean Telecom Services, could possibly be a shell company who applied for a trademark, that sounds a LOT like the iPhone. The company also applied for the same patent in Australia as well.
C 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: handheld and mobile digital electronic devices for the sending and receiving of telephone calls, faxes, electronic mail, and other digital data; MP3 and other digital format audio players; handheld computers, personal digital assistants, electronic organizers, electronic notepads; magnetic data carriers; telephones, mobile phones, computer gaming machines, videophones, cameras; prerecorded computer programs for personal information management, database management software, electronic mail and messaging software, paging software, database synchronization software, computer programs for accessing, browsing and searching online databases, computer software and firmware, namely operating system programs, data synchronization programs, and application development tool programs for personal and handheld computers; electronic handheld units for the wireless receipt and/or transmission of data that enable the user to keep track of or manage personal information; software for the redirection of messages, Internet e-mail, and/or other data to one or more electronic handheld devices from a data store on or associated with a personal computer or a server; and software for the synchronization of data between a remote station or device and a fixed or remote station or device; computer hardware and software for providing integrated telephone communication with computerized global information networks
C 028. US 022 023 038 050. G & S: hand-held unit for playing electronic games Source: Apple vs. Cisco over iPhone
Apparently, Apple doesn’t care about others trademarks, just their own. According to a blog post from Cisco, they did not want money from Apple for using the iPhone trademark, nor did they want royalties on the iPhone, or even an exchange of services, they wanted to work together, now and in the future, they hoped their products could interoperate and hoped to facilitate collaboration with Apple. But Apple said, this is the iPhone without striking a deal with the trademark holders, hence the lawsuit.
Cisco owns the iPhone trademark. We have since 2000, when we bought a company called Infogear Technology, which had developed a product that combined web access and telephone. Infogear?s registrations for the mark date to 1996, before iMacs and iPods were even glimmers in Apple’s eye. We shipped and/or supported that iPhone product for years. We have been shipping new, updated iPhone products since last spring, and had a formal launch late last year. Apple knows this; they approached us about the iPhone trademark as far back as 2001, and have approached us several times over the past year.
Fundamentally we wanted an open approach. We hoped our products could interoperate in the future. In our view, the network provides the basis to make this happen?it provides the foundation of innovation that allows converged devices to deliver the services that consumers want. Our goal was to take that to the next level by facilitating collaboration with Apple. And we wanted to make sure to differentiate the brands in a way that could work for both companies and not confuse people, since our products combine both web access and voice telephony. That’s it. Openness and clarity. Source: UPDATE on Cisco’s iPhone Trademark – Commentary from Mark Chandler, Cisco’s SVP and General Counsel, on Apple’s infringement of Cisco’s iPhone trademark.
He goes on to say, Apple discussed the patents pending on their new technologies, so he knows they value intellectual property, and he asked, if someone created a product and called it the iPod but said it was different because it used a different video format, how would Apple react? I think Apple will have to give in, especially since the Cisco iPhone had been registered for the trademark in 1996, about ten years ago. How long has the iPod been around?
Cisco Systems filed suit against Apple Wednesday over their trademark iPhone. The lawsuit came one day after the Apple iPhone was announced and was filed in California.
San Jose-based Cisco, the world?s largest network-equipment maker, has owned the trademark on the name ?iPhone? since 2000, when it acquired InfoGear Technology Corp., which originally registered the name.
And three weeks ago, Cisco?s Linksys division put the trademark to use, releasing an Internet phone called ?iPhone? that uses the increasingly popular Voice over Internet Protocol, or VoIP.
But on Tuesday, Jobs unveiled Apple?s own iPhone, a ?game-changing? touch-screen-controlled cell phone device that plays music, surfs the Web and delivers voicemail and e-mail. Source: Cisco Systems sues Apple over iPhone
Cisco had posted earlier that they had been negotiating with Apple for years and that they had just sent over what they thought could be the last changes needed to make a deal between them, but apparently that is not the case.
Cisco has released a small statement about Apple’s release of the iPhone. It doesn’t give any specifics, but it does say they expect a signed agreement anyday from Apple to the terms they gave them to be able to use the iPhone name.
Given Apple’s numerous requests for permission to use Cisco’s iPhone trademark over the past several years and our extensive discussions with them recently, it is our belief that with their announcement today, Apple intends to agree to the final document and public statement that were distributed to them last night and that addressed a few remaining items. We expect to receive a signed agreement today. Source: Cisco
Wonder how much it is going to cost Apple?