The problem you will run into (in the case of a WAN failure) is that inbound calls are probably mapped to a PRI in ONE location, so calls will still hit the main site. Now, in the case of a server failure at the main site, you should still be up.
<br><br>With 4ms of latency, you could easily drag layer-2 up and bridge it across the WAN (via DLSw) and replicate a single subnet in more than one location).<br><br>You can have as many IPCC Express instances as you want. Just build different CTI port groups for each and have a different CTI Route Point for each application (which the specific IPCC server will register to the CCM cluster).
<br><br><br><br>Jonathan<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 12/11/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Ortiz, Carlos</b> <<a href="mailto:CORTIZ@broward.org">CORTIZ@broward.org</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div link="blue" vlink="blue" lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p><font color="navy" face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: navy;">The avg ping time to these 2 locations is
about 4 ms so the good news is the circuit doesn't blow! ;) </span></font></p>
<p><font color="navy" face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: navy;"> </span></font></p>
<p><font color="navy" face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: navy;">The requirement for a local server is more
political than anything, but both agencies want to be functional even in the
case of a ring failure. The only problem we have had with the ring in 2.5
years was once after a carrier upgrade. </span></font></p>
<p><font color="navy" face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: navy;"> </span></font></p>
<p><font color="navy" face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: navy;">I thought that you were only allowed 1
IPCC Express instance per cluster. Would installing other instances work but be
going against best practices? If I can install multiple instances then that
would solve my problem.</span></font></p>
<p><font color="navy" face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: navy;"> </span></font></p>
<p><font color="navy" face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: navy;"> </span></font></p>
<p><font color="navy" face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: navy;">Carlos</span></font></p>
<p><font color="navy" face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: navy;"> </span></font></p>
<div>
<div style="text-align: center;" align="center"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%">
</span></font></div>
<p><b><font face="Tahoma" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Tahoma; font-weight: bold;">From:</span></font></b><font face="Tahoma" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Tahoma;"> Jonathan Charles
[mailto:<a href="mailto:jonvoip@gmail.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">jonvoip@gmail.com</a>] <br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Monday, December 11, 2006
11:00 AM<br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> <a href="mailto:sam@munzani.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">sam@munzani.com</a><br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cc:</span></b> Ortiz, Carlos;
<a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a><br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [cisco-voip] Call
Center Software</span></font></p>
</div><div><span class="e" id="q_10f72b351de24a45_1">
<p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">What is the latency
across the circuit? PING times between hosts
on opposite ends? <br>
<br>
If it is less than 5ms, you are good, if it is over 40ms, you are screwed (and
your circuit blows).<br>
<br>
Now, we are fighting the following statement in the SRND, "When deploying
High Availability (HA), the CRS Engine and Database components must both be
redundant and collocated in the same building." (UCCX 4.0(4) SRND, page
3-3).<br>
<br>
Have you considered non-HA? I am just wondering if the requirement for a local
IPCC server was for HA or due to a need to be locally administered.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Jonathan</span></font></p>
<div>
<p><span><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">On 12/11/06, <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sam
Munzani</span></b> <<a href="mailto:sam@munzani.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">sam@munzani.com</a>>
wrote:</span></font></span></p>
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Acrually OC-48 offers you 2.4Gbps bandwidth only. So from what angle it
would be more than LAN is debatable topic :-).. I know OC-48 is a big deal for
the WAN but it still doesn't come close to a slow LAN.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<span>sam</span><br>
<br>
</span></font></p>
<div><span>
<p style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">If you have an OC-48, you
have more WAN bandwidth than would be generally available on a LAN.</span></font></span><br>
<br>
<span>I would put in the failover server as a test, and see if it
works, because, at the end of the day, it is just IP communication. </span><br>
<br>
<span>Since I believe there is a heartbeat requirement for UCCX 4.0,
you can tunnel a subnet between sites to fool the server into thinking it is
hooked up via a crossover.</span><br>
<br>
<span>Hey, it's worth a shot.</span><br>
<br>
<span>Alternatively, you could install two UCCX servers, without
failover and make them entirely autonomous (IOW, they have nothing to do with
each other, save for the fact that they are both connected to the same
CallManager cluster). </span><br>
<br>
<span>You would create two distinct sets of CTI ports and CTI Route
Points and have different applications on each...</span><br>
<br>
<span>(or you could manually replicate and create a hunt group to the
CTI Route-Points (with circular routing) so that CCM would load balance between
them. </span><br>
<br>
<br>
<span>Jonathan</span></p>
<div>
<p><span><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">On 12/11/06, <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Ortiz,
Carlos</span></b> <<a href="mailto:CORTIZ@broward.org" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">CORTIZ@broward.org
</a>> wrote:</span></font></span> </p>
<div link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">We
currently use IPCC Express for our Help Desk/ Call center. The location
where the server resides is connected via an OC48 ring to 2 other locations
that require call center functionality. Ideally we could run all the
queues out of our IPCC Express setup but their may be a business requirement
for the call centers to be LOCALLY installed. I have been told that
IPCC Express does not support failover via the WAN. IPCC Enterprise does
but is an expensive proposition. Are there any alternatives software call
center packages that can accommodate this requirement at a reasonable price?</span></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Carlos</span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
<p style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
cisco-voip mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a><br>
<a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip</a><br>
<br>
</span></font></p>
</div>
<p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br>
<br>
</span></font></p>
</span></div>
<pre style="text-align: center;"><font face="Courier New" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">
<hr align="center" size="4" width="90%">
</span></font></pre><pre><span><font face="Courier New" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"> </span></font></span></pre><pre><span><font face="Courier New" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">_______________________________________________
</span></font></span><br>
<span>cisco-voip mailing list</span><br>
<span><a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a></span></pre><pre><span><font face="Courier New" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">
</span></font></span></pre><pre><span><font face="Courier New" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip</a></span></font></span></pre><pre><span><font face="Courier New" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"> </span></font></span></pre>
<p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
<p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></font></p>
</span></div></div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br>