[cisco-voip] FW: Unity Failover and PIMG Integration question

[Zachary Gillman (US)]

Pat, please see my answers inline below.

 

Thanks for your feedback.

 

Zack

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Pat Hayes [mailto:pat-cv at wcyv.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 5:41 PM

To: Zachary Gillman (US)

Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net

Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Unity Failover and PIMG Integration question

 

Zack,

 

The PIMG will route the call to the secondary server if call setup fails


with the primary. I don't quite follow how that combined with the option


  to failover upon receiving a call on the secondary breaks voicemail 

routing? 

 

As we tested, the PIMG will route the call to the secondary server only
when unreachable via ip.  It didn't seem to have state awareness of the
failover pair or the av-services.  As long as you could ping the primary
Unity server, it was attempting to route to the primary.  When we
manually failed over, we received a busy from the Nortel/Pimg call
attempt.  When we disable the switchport that the primary connects to,
it fails over just fine.  The IP phones do work when manually failing
over and back.  This is a PIMG and CallManager integration.  The
failover monitor will failover if a call lands on an inactive secondary
if its a PIMG call or a CCM call.  

 

It seems that just the opposite would be the case. If you don't 

have that checked, and you have some sort of failure that leaves 

services running, but not answering calls (it happens), then there will 

be no way to automatically fail over.

 

There is a checkbox to automatically failover and there is a seperate
checkbox to failover when the secondary receives a call.  I agree with
you if you don't check the first one, that defeats the purpose of
failover.  We are talking about the second option to failover if a call
is received on an inactive secondary server.

 

Could you elaborate on what call flow you think this would be a problem
for?

 

We ran into a situation where we maxed out the CCM ports, received a
call on the inactive secondary, it failed over, the PIMG had
connectivity to the Primary, tried to route calls to it, and failed.

 

For what happens when all of the ports are busy, the check box doesn't 

really come in to play. If all 16 ports have a call going through them, 

there is no path a call could take that would land it on the secondary, 

it would just keep ringing or get busy tone, depending on PBX config.

 

Again, it was the CCM that invoked the failover.

 

Hope this helps,

Pat

 

 

-------- Original Message  --------

From: "Zachary Gillman \(US\)" <Zachary.Gillman at us.didata.com>

To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net

Subject: [cisco-voip] Unity Failover and PIMG Integration question

Date: 12/12/2007 3:05 PM

 

> Greetings all,

> 

>  

> 

> We have a customer that has implemented Unity 4.2 with a failover
server.

> 

> They have an IP integration to CallManager and 2 PIMGs to a Nortel
Meridian.

> 

>  

> 

> Here is the scenario, the failover monitor will initiate a failover
when 

> any of the AV services go down or there is a full server failure,
that's 

> how it was designed to work and is doing its job.  The PIMGs will only


> home to the second Unity Server only if there is a full server failure


> and connectivity has been lost, it has no visibility to the AV 

> services.  So if there is a software failover, the PIMG will still see


> the Primary Unity Server in service and route the Nortel voicemail
calls 

> to the Primary Unity server, that's how it was designed to work and is


> doing its job. 

> 

>  

> 

> In the Cisco PIMG with Nortel Integration Guide, it instructs you to 

> check the "Failover if a call arrives on an inactive secondary server"


> within the failover monitor.  That seems somewhat odd since the
scenario 

> depicted above breaks the Nortel voicemail routing if there is a 

> software failover. 

> 

>  

> 

> Has anyone had any support issues with regards to unchecking this 

> option?  The customer would rather get a busy if the ports are maxed 

> out, but is concerned that if they go against the guide, Cisco will
not 

> support it.

> 

>  

> 

> Thank you in advance for your time and help.

> 

>  

> 

> Zack

> 

>  

> 

>
------------------------------------------------------------------------




-----------------------------------------
Disclaimer:

This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain
confidential and privileged information and is for use by the
designated addressee(s) named above only.  If you are not the
intended addressee, you are hereby notified that you have received
this communication in error and that any use or reproduction of
this email or its contents is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful.  If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately by replying to this message and deleting it
from your computer. Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20071213/2d9d7688/attachment-0001.html