[cisco-voip] H.323 Gateway Failover Testing

Tue Jan 17 13:57:35 EST 2006

Kevin:
Yes, I am able to place calls out of GW2 if GW2 is the only gateway in
the route group and route list.  So I do know that the gateway is
working with the correct dial-peers.  That's where I'm stumped. I do
have tracing on and used TranslatorX to read through the trace files,
but I can't find any reason code.

Just to confirm your test, you only shut down the controller T1,
correct?  Erick said that CCM only checks IP addresses, so I wanted to
make sure your gateway IP address was up, but only the controller T1 was
down.

Thanks.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Thorngren [mailto:kthorngr at cisco.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 5:08 AM
To: Stu Packett
Cc: CiscosupportUpuck <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] H.323 Gateway Failover Testing

Just to confirm what happens, I tried this in my lab.  I created a a
Route Group with GW1 (highest preference) and GW2 which are both H.323
Gateways.  I assigned the RG to a Route List and that RL is assigned to
a Route Pattern.  I can place an outbound call that uses GW1.  Shut down
the PRI controller in GW1.  Place the same outbound call and now
GW2 is used.

Sounds like you have a GW configuration issue. Either GW2 does not have
a matching dial peer or the PSTN is failing the call or there is a
problem in GW1 and the call matching another dial peer and being
extended to an undesired location (as Erick suggested below).  
CallManager will reroute the call to another RG/RL member based on the
disconnect cause code returned from the GW.  In my test the returned
code is:

Cause i = 0x8083 - No route to destination

Are you able to place calls out GW2 with it being the only GW in the RL?

I would start by looking at CCM traces and h225 debugs to determine the
disconnect cause code.  The CCM traces will also show you if it tries to
reroute to the other GW.

Kevin
On Jan 12, 2006, at 11:45 PM, Stu Packett wrote:

> I'd like to go with MGCP as well, but Cisco MobilityManager only runs 
> on
> H.323 gateways, so we can't make the switch yet.  Thanks.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ortiz, Carlos [mailto:CORTIZ at broward.org]
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 6:43 PM
> To: Stu Packett; Louis R. Marascio; erickbe at yahoo.com; 
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] H.323 Gateway Failover Testing
>
> This may not be the answer you want, but if you were to implement MGCP

> gateways this may do it for you.  With MGCP Call Manager controls the 
> gateways and pulls this off nicely.  Almost all my gateways are MGCP 
> and I have seen it bypass unreachable PRI's seamlessly.
>
> Carlos
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Stu Packett
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 5:56 PM
> To: Louis R. Marascio; erickbe at yahoo.com; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] H.323 Gateway Failover Testing
>
> I set the CCM H225 Timer to 2 seconds and the fast busy still came up.
> I believe Erick's response is accurate that the CallManagers don't 
> know anything about the gateway's status other than the gateways's IP 
> address.  Once I'm able to shut GW1, I'll let you know what the 
> outcome is.  In the meantime, I'm open to other suggestions.  Thanks.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Louis R. Marascio [mailto:marascio at metreos.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 2:12 PM
> To: Stu Packett; erickbe at yahoo.com; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] H.323 Gateway Failover Testing
>
> You need to tweak the H.225 TCP Timer service parameter.  This 
> parameter controls how long CallManager will wait for the H.225 TCP 
> connection to be established when setting up a call.  Default values 
> for this service parameter differ between CCM versions but I've found 
> that it is usually set to a value that is too long.  In essence, CCM 
> is giving up on the call before the H.225 TCP Timer has elapsed, and 
> thus it has not had a chance to try the next member in the route 
> group.
>
> Lower the value of the H.225 TCP Timer service parameter and try it 
> again.  I don't think there is any harm in making it 1-2 seconds.
> Perhaps Wes or someone else on the list with a deeper understanding 
> can correct me here.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Louis
>
> ---
> Louis R. Marascio
> Metreos Corporation
> t: +1 (512) 687 2005
> m: +1 (512) 964 4569
> e: marascio at metreos.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Erick 
> Bergquist
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 3:56 PM
> To: Stu Packett; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] H.323 Gateway Failover Testing
>
> With a H.323 gateway, the call manager doesn't know what hardware, 
> ports, controllers, etc are in the gateway. The call manager just 
> sends messages to the gateways IP address and it's up to the gateway 
> to handle the call. The dialpeer, etc config on gateway is how that is

> done.
>
> Are there multiple dial-peer matches for the digits sent by call 
> manager in the gateway and the call maybe went out another port, etc?
>
> Erick
>
> --- Stu Packett <SPackett at fenwick.com> wrote:
>
>> CallManager 4.0(2a)sr2b
>> 2811 IOS 12.4(5)
>>
>> I have 2 H.323 gateways.  Let's call them GW1 and GW2.  In 
>> CallManager, I setup a route group with GW1 and GW2 in the list
>> (GW1 is first
>> preference).  I then setup a route pattern to use this route group.
>> To do some failover testing, I telnetted into GW1 and shutdown the 
>> 'controller T1 0/0/0'.  Incoming calls failed over just fine to GW2.
>> My problem is when I do an outgoing call, I get a fast busy.  Does 
>> GW1
>
>> need to be completely shut down for this failover test to work?  I'm 
>> thinking it's because CallManager sees GW1's IP address is still up 
>> (even though
>> T1 controller is down) and routes the call there.  I don't have 
>> access
>
>> to GW1 because it's at a remote site to shut it down, but does the 
>> route groups depend on IP address and not on the controller's status?
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> IRS Circular 230  Disclosure:  To ensure compliance with requirements

>> imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice in

>> this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written

>> by Fenwick & West LLP to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose

>> of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) 
>> promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any 
>> transaction
>
>> or matter addressed herein.
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ATTENTION:
>> The information contained in this message may be legally privileged 
>> and confidential.  It is intended to be read only by the individual 
>> or
>
>> entity to whom it is addressed or by their designee. If the reader of

>> this message is not the intended recipient, you are on notice that 
>> any
>
>> distribution of this message, in any form, is strictly prohibited.
>>
>> If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify

>> the sender and/or Fenwick & West LLP by telephone at (650) 988-8500 
>> and delete or destroy any copy of this message.
>>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> IRS Circular 230  Disclosure:  To ensure compliance with requirements 
> imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice in 
> this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written 
> by Fenwick & West LLP to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose 
> of
> (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) 
> promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction

> or matter addressed herein.
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> ATTENTION:
> The information contained in this message may be legally privileged 
> and confidential.  It is intended to be read only by the individual or

> entity to whom it is addressed or by their designee. If the reader of 
> this message is not the intended recipient, you are on notice that any

> distribution of this message, in any form, is strictly prohibited.
>
> If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify 
> the sender and/or Fenwick & West LLP by telephone at (650) 988-8500 
> and delete or destroy any copy of this message.
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
--------------------------------------------------------

IRS Circular 230  Disclosure:  To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice in this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written by Fenwick & West LLP to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
--------------------------------------------------------

ATTENTION:
The information contained in this message may be legally privileged and confidential.  It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in any form, is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and/or Fenwick & West LLP by telephone at (650) 988-8500 and delete or destroy any copy of this message.