[cisco-voip] 8865s and MRA CUCM registration failover issue
Anthony Holloway
avholloway+cisco-voip at gmail.com
Wed Oct 30 19:34:50 EDT 2019
Erick,
It doesn't look like there was an X8.12.5. Did you mean X12.5? Or was
that a version they pulled?
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/unified-communications/expressway-series/products-release-notes-list.html
What is "this" in the context of your question? The Jabber IM only, or the
TC/CE endpoints?
Also, I'm going to be doing a clustered X8.11.4 deployment here shortly and
will have three CUCM CPEs, and so I'll be doing some testing and whatnot.
If I run into issues, I'll let you know, but I will also be filing a
defect, should one need be created at that time. Possibly even a
documentation defect, since the guides don't specify quantity of CUCM
servers; it's left at simply: CUCM fail over.
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 5:09 PM Erick Bergquist <erickbee at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20191030/3ba0a5dd/attachment.htm>
More information about the cisco-voip
mailing list