[cisco-voip] H.323 Gateway Failover Testing

Tue Jan 17 15:08:21 EST 2006

Hi Stu,

Yes, I only shut down the T1 controller for my test.  If you want to 
unicast the CCM traces I will take a look.  Need to know the call time 
the calling and called numbers.

Kevin
On Jan 17, 2006, at 1:57 PM, Stu Packett wrote:

> 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.
>