[cisco-voip] [External] Re: MRA failover doesn't work, Cisco TAC agrees, says it's a documentation defect

[Hunter Fuller]

It might be worth setting up a Jabber test endpoint just to see.

Some questions though:
 - Does every Expressway-E know about every Expressway-C?
 - Does every Expressway-C know about every CUCM?

I'm trying to figure out what the desired architecture is, and/or how
this problem would happen.
In our environment, the above are both true. So the loss of any number
of anything, should not result in failover issues - and that is the
behavior we have seen (we have shut down entire sites due to
maintenance, power failure, etc. and failover worked).
In fact, we have found MRA phones to be great at failover in this way
(our MRA phones are all 8851s). Jabber has been the problem child.

--
Hunter Fuller (they)
Router Jockey
VBH M-1C
+1 256 824 5331

Office of Information Technology
The University of Alabama in Huntsville
Network Engineering

On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 9:13 AM Matthew Huff <mhuff at ox.com> wrote:
>
> We don’t use Jabber nor Webex.
>
>
>
> Cisco TAC has been escalated and they have been working on this for over 2 months. I have sent repeated expressway and PRT logs from the phone. After working with Cisco engineering, the claim it is “working as intended” and plan on updating the documentation to reflect the limitation that if you loose both the subscriber and redundant expressway-C server, failover won’t happen.
>
>
>
> I’d love to be proven wrong since we may have to completely replace our solution.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Kent Roberts <dvxkid at gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 10:09 AM
> To: Matthew Huff <mhuff at ox.com>
> Cc: cisco-voip voyp list <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] MRA failover doesn't work, Cisco TAC agrees, says it's a documentation defect
>
>
>
> This sound more like a config issue…
>
>
>
> Have run into issues where expressways go stupid when boxes go offline
>
> As for it being the phones 88xx. Does the same happen with jabber or webex?    If it does i’d  requeue the case….
>
>
>
> Kent
>
>
>
> On Jun 21, 2022, at 07:47, Matthew Huff <mhuff at ox.com> wrote:
>
> 
>
> We have a fairly common and standard deployment for our MRA solution. All are running CUCM 14+, latest Expressway, etc…
>
>
>
> Vmware server 1 (jn DMZ)
>
>   ExpressWay-E-1
>
>
>
> Vmware server 2 (in DMZ)
>
>    ExpressWay-E-2
>
>
>
> Vmware Server 3 (In Core)
>
>   CUCM Publisher
>
>    Expressway-C-1
>
>
>
> VMWare Server 4( In Core)
>
>    CUCM Subscriber
>
>    Expressway-C-2
>
>
>
>
>
> If ether Expreway-E VMs fail, redundancy works fine
> If either CUCM fails, redundancy works fine
> If either Expressway-C VMs fail, redundancy works fine
> If VMWare Server 4 fails (say during patching, hardware maintenance or hardware failure), redundancy fails. Remote phones un-register and never register no matter what is done. If either CUCM Subscriber or Expressway-C-2 is brought back online, phones register.
>
>
>
> Cisco TAC claims that this is a limitation of our Cisco 88xx SIP MRA phones and is not solvable unless we purchase two new vmware servers and split the CUCM and Expressway-C into separate servers so they both won’t go down at once. Sinc VMWare Server 3 & 4 are at different locations, vMotion isn’t an option since there is no shared storage.
>
>
>
> Anyone run into this or have any suggestions? We have engaged our VAR and cisco rep and may have to replace our phone system since we are all working from home and MRA support including redundancy is critical to us.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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