[cisco-voip] 8865s and MRA CUCM registration failover issue
Erick Bergquist
erickbee at gmail.com
Wed Oct 30 18:09:25 EDT 2019
Is there a 8.12.5 enhancement to help with this specifically? On
8.11.4 at moment.
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 2:58 PM Benjamin Turner <benmturner at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> This will work with jabber since you are not testing the failover of presence. And phone models TC/CE would would work regardless of a clustered C and E. 12.5 should have fixed these issues but......
>
> Get Outlook for Android
>
> ________________________________
> From: cisco-voip <cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net> on behalf of Erick Bergquist <erickbee at gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 4:05:06 PM
> To: Ryan Ratliff (rratliff) <rratliff at cisco.com>
> Cc: voip puck <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] 8865s and MRA CUCM registration failover issue
>
> Understood, will keep pushing that angle and try to get some answers
> on the differences and 88xx MRA capabilities.
>
> Thanks.
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 1:57 PM Ryan Ratliff (rratliff)
> <rratliff at cisco.com> wrote:
> >
> > The implementation is different for TC/CE, phones, and Jabber (Teams I would expect to mirror Jabber).
> >
> > I still think a bug is warranted, if nothing else to track the expectation. Back in the x8.11 days we had to get the docs updated to reflect that fact that phones weren't redundant without clustered Expressways, this seems to be a variant of that.
> >
> > -Ryan
> >
> > On 10/30/19, 3:54 PM, "Erick Bergquist" <erickbee at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Pair of expressways, clustered. DX 70/80s happen to work fine with
> > all 3 over MRA.
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 1:13 PM Ryan Ratliff (rratliff)
> > <rratliff at cisco.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > IIRC (it's been a looong time since I looked into this) failover with RMA was based on device->Expressway-E redundancy, not so much Expressway->CUCM.
> > > This is why you don't get any redundancy without a clustered Expressway.
> > >
> > > I'd recommend treating it as a bug and pushing for one to be created. If you have two Expressway-Es in the cluster (and the phone knows this via DNS lookups) then it should maintain connections to an active and standby CUCM.
> > >
> > > If anyone happens to have a cluster of 3 Expressways to test with, I wonder how that would look.
> > >
> > > - Ryan
> > >
> > > On 10/30/19, 2:57 PM, "cisco-voip on behalf of Erick Bergquist" <cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net on behalf of erickbee at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Following up on this, still working to figure this out and have been
> > > working with TAC.
> > >
> > > Does anyone know if the 8865s when using MRA use only the first 2
> > > servers in UCM group or will also the third server if present?
> > >
> > > On the 8865 phone web page it shows all 3 servers from UCM group.
> > >
> > > On the phone information page on phone itself, it shows the Active
> > > Server and Stand-by Server only.
> > >
> > > When we make the first server unreachable (CCM1) the 8865 over MRA
> > > fails to second server CCM2 fine and the phone information screen
> > > shows CCM1 as Active Server and the Stand-by Server field is empty.
> > > The web page of phone shows all 3 servers still with CCM2 as Active.
> > > When we make CCM2 unreachable the phone just spins and never goes to
> > > the third server over MRA. Phones on-premise use the third server
> > > fine.
> > >
> > > I can not find any documentation on this and so far no one seems to
> > > really have an answer if 88xx phones over MRA will use the third
> > > server in UCM group.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 12:25 PM Erick Bergquist <erickbee at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, I've seen that bug before (and another cisco doc) and that bug
> > > > says fixed in 8.11.x which we are on.
> > > >
> > > > All 3 CUCMs are in our SRV records and show active on the Expressway side.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 12:04 PM Brian Meade <bmeade90 at vt.edu> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > You're may be hitting this limitation- https://bst.cloudapps.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCvj49486
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If not, are all 3 CUCM servers in the _cisco-uds SRV record and resolvable by the Expressway-C?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:47 AM Erick Bergquist <erickbee at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Has anyone seen where 8865 model phones don't register over MRA in
> > > > >> the UCM group if the some servers are not reachable?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 8865s with 12.5.1 SR3 firmware
> > > > >> 12.5.1 SU1 CUCM
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 2 expressway pairs
> > > > >>
> > > > >> UCM group order (same as service group),
> > > > >>
> > > > >> CCM1
> > > > >> CCM2
> > > > >> CCM3
> > > > >>
> > > > >> When CCM1 and CCM2 are unreachable the MRA 8865 phone just spins at registering.
> > > > >> Once CCM1 or CCM2 become reachable, the phone comes backs up.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> DX 70's and DX 80's register fine when CCM3 is only available over MRA.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> Erick
> > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > >> 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
More information about the cisco-voip
mailing list