[cisco-voip] Not supported I'm sure..... but what do you think?

Thu Oct 27 16:16:20 EDT 2016

Unless you only had a single CUCM node (which BE6KS limits you to, and BE6K
customers are a fit for).  In which case, a truly seeamless way to "flip"
it would work in all scenarios.

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Justin Steinberg <jsteinberg at gmail.com>
wrote:

> The upgrades take too long is part of it.  Especially if the upgrade is an
> RU upgrade, because it means that both the patch install/upgrade and the
> switch needs to take place in a maintenance mode.
>
> The missing piece in my opinion is a way to put CUCM into a maintenance
> mode where it continues to service active calls (on ccm, cti, ipvms
> processes, etc) but forces new calls/registrations to another cucm.
>
> Unity Connection does have a nice implementation of this (i.e. 'stop
> taking calls') which makes for completely transparent reboots, etc.
>
> If CUCM had a maintenance mode like feature, we would be able to do these
> things during the day without causing problems.
>
> Justin
>
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Ryan Ratliff (rratliff) <
> rratliff at cisco.com> wrote:
>
>> Honest question, what exactly is it about the current implementation that
>> fails to deliver on this?
>>
>> Is it something in the design of the upgrade process?
>>
>> Is it that the upgrade takes too long to be done during any reasonable
>> maintenance window?
>>
>> Is it that you have to test the new version before you roll it into
>> production?
>>
>> Is it <your answer goes here>>
>>
>> -Ryan
>>
>> On Oct 27, 2016, at 12:02 PM, Anthony Holloway <
>> avholloway+cisco-voip at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> If only there was an upgrade process wherein you install the new version
>> to an inactive partition, and then could switch to the new version when
>> you're ready.  /sarcasm
>>
>> But seriously though, everyone in this thread is essentially coming up
>> with their own clever way of replicating the promise Cisco failed to
>> deliver on, which is performing your upgrades during production on the
>> inactive partition and then switching versions in a maintenance window.  If
>> they would have only held themselves to a higher standard, we wouldn't need
>> this complex of an alternate solution.
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Ryan Huff <ryanhuff at outlook.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Matthew is correct, copying is listed as "Supported with Caveats" at:
>>> http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/Unified_Communications_VMware_Requirements;
>>> The caveat being found at http://docwiki.cisco.com/wi
>>> ki/Unified_Communications_VMware_Requirements#Copy_Virtual_Machine
>>>
>>>
>>> The VM needs to be powered down first and the resulting VM will have a
>>> different MAC address (unless it was originally manually specified); so
>>> you'll need to rehost the PLM if it is co-res to any VM that you copy.
>>>
>>>
>>> Where I have seen folks get into trouble with this is where a subscriber
>>> is copied, and the user mistakenly thinks that by changing the IP and
>>> hostname it becomes unique and can be added to the cluster as a new
>>> subscriber. I have also seen users make a copy of a publisher and change
>>> the network details of the copy, thinking it makes a unique cluster and
>>> then wonders why things like ILS wont work between the two clusters (and it
>>> isn't just because the cluster IDs are the same).
>>>
>>>
>>> Having said all of that, I would NEVER do this in production ... maybe
>>> that is just me being cautious or old school, but that is just me. Even
>>> without changing network details on the copy, I have seen this cause issues
>>> with Affinity. At the very least, if you travel this path I would make sure
>>> that the copy runs on the same host and even in the same datastore.
>>>
>>>
>>> === An alternative path ===
>>>
>>>
>>> Admittedly, this path is longer and there is a little more work involve
>>> but is the safer path, IMO and is what I would trust for a production
>>> scenario.
>>>
>>>
>>> 1.) Create a private port group on the host. If the cluster is on
>>> multiple hosts, span the port group through a connecting network to the
>>> other hosts but DO NOT create an SVI anywhere in the the topology for that
>>> DOT1Q tag (remembering to add a DOT1Q tag on any networking devices between
>>> the two hosts and allowing on any trunks between the two hosts).
>>>
>>>
>>> 2.) Upload Cisco's CSR1000V to the host. If you're not familiar with the
>>> product it is at the core and unlicensed, a virtual router with three
>>> interfaces by default. Out of the box, it is more than enough to replicate
>>> DNS/NTP on your private network which is all you'll need. Assign the
>>> private port group to the network adapters and configure DNS and NTP
>>> (master 2) on this virtual router.
>>>
>>>
>>> 3.) Build out a replica of your production UC cluster on the private
>>> network.
>>>
>>>
>>> 4.) Take a DRS of the production UC apps and then put your SFTP server
>>> on the private network and do a DRS restore to the private UC apps.
>>>
>>>
>>> 5.) Upgrade the private UC apps and switch your port group labels on the
>>> production/private UC apps during a maintenance window.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>
>>> Ryan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *From:* cisco-voip <cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net> on behalf of
>>> Matthew Loraditch <MLoraditch at heliontechnologies.com>
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 25, 2016 3:01 PM
>>> *To:* Tommy Schlotterer; Scott Voll; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Not supported I'm sure..... but what do you
>>> think?
>>>
>>> I can’t see any reason it wouldn’t be supported honestly. Offline
>>> Cloning is allowed for migration/backup purposes. I actually did the NAT
>>> thing to do my BE5k to 6K conversions. Kept both systems online.
>>>
>>>
>>> The only thing I can think to be thought of is ITLs, does an upgrade do
>>> anything that you’d have to reset phones to go back to the old servers if
>>> there are issues? I don’t think so, but not certain.
>>>
>>>
>>> Matthew G. Loraditch – CCNP-Voice, CCNA-R&S, CCDA
>>> Network Engineer
>>> Direct Voice: 443.541.1518
>>>
>>> Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/heliontech?ref=hl> | Twitter
>>> <https://twitter.com/HelionTech> | LinkedIn
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies?trk=top_nav_home>
>>> | G+ <https://plus.google.com/+Heliontechnologies/posts>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] *On
>>> Behalf Of *Tommy Schlotterer
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 25, 2016 2:49 PM
>>> *To:* Scott Voll <svoll.voip at gmail.com>; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Not supported I'm sure..... but what do you
>>> think?
>>>
>>>
>>> I do a similar, but supported process. I take DRS backups and then
>>> restore on servers in a sandbox VLAN. Works well. Make sure you check your
>>> phone firmware and upgrade to the current version before the cutover or all
>>> your phones will have to upgrade on cutover.
>>>
>>>
>>> Also make sure you don’t change Hostname/Ip addresses in the sandbox as
>>> that will cause your ITL to regenerate and cause issues with phone
>>> configuration changes after cutover.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Tommy
>>>
>>>
>>> *Tommy Schlotterer | Systems Engineer*
>>> *Presidio | **www.presidio.com <http://www.presidio.com/>*
>>> *20 N. Saint Clair, 3rd Floor, Toledo, OH 43604*
>>> *D: 419.214.1415 <419.214.1415> | C: 419.706.0259 <419.706.0259> | **tschlotterer at presidio.com
>>> <tschlotterer at presidio.com>*
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
>>> <cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net>] *On Behalf Of *Scott Voll
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 25, 2016 2:43 PM
>>> *To:* cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>>> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] Not supported I'm sure..... but what do you
>>> think?
>>>
>>>
>>> So my co-worker and I are thinking about upgrades.  we are currently on
>>> 10.5 train and thinking about the 11.5 train.
>>>
>>>
>>> What would be your thoughts about taking a clone of every VM.  CM, UC,
>>> UCCx, CER, PLM,
>>>
>>>
>>> placing it on another vlan with the same IP's.  NAT it as it goes onto
>>> your network so it has access to NTP, DNS, AD, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>> do your upgrade on the clones.
>>>
>>>
>>> Then in VM ware shut down the originals,and change the Vlan (on the
>>> clones)  back to the production vlan for your voice cluster.
>>>
>>>
>>> it would be like a telco slash cut.  10 minute outage as you move from
>>> one version to the other.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *This message w/attachments (message) is intended solely for the use of
>>> the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged,
>>> confidential or proprietary. If you are not an intended recipient, please
>>> notify the sender, and then please delete and destroy all copies and
>>> attachments. Please be advised that any review or dissemination of, or the
>>> taking of any action in reliance on, the information contained in or
>>> attached to this message is prohibited.*
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20161027/0f26fb53/attachment.html>