<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>CUBE-HA on a 4k doesn't seem very battle tested yet. Clearly it shouldn't go the way of CUBE-SP on an ASR1k which got dumped.<br><br>Some of those are significant caveats though (SDP passthru being a possible deal killer for me); almost makes just doing plain old HSRP and setting the client expectation for failover seem just as reasonable.<br><br>Thanks,<br><br>Ryan<br><br><br><div>> From: wokka@justfamily.org<br>> Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 08:17:45 -0600<br>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Sip design question<br>> To: ryanhuff@outlook.com<br>> CC: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<br>> <br>> Per this: http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/voice/cube_mgmt/configuration/xe-3s/cube-mgmt-xe-3s-book/voi-stateful-switchover.html<br>> it says it is on 3.2 or later, but it does have a list of caveats,<br>> perhaps that is what I was thinking about.<br>> <br>> Sorry for the false alarm.<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 5:33 AM, Ryan Huff <ryanhuff@outlook.com> wrote:<br>> > Charles,<br>> ><br>> > I guess that is a better place to start; I may be going down this road in a<br>> > near future. I have been reading<br>> > http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/voice/cube/configuration/cube-book/voi-cube-high-availability.html#concept_5013D60352C446769D62736C8CDE87E8<br>> > which seems to suggest that L2 box to box is possible on the 4451.<br>> ><br>> > Are you saying it is not?<br>> ><br>> > Thanks,<br>> ><br>> > Ryan<br>> ><br>> >> From: wokka@justfamily.org<br>> >> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 23:59:34 -0600<br>> >> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Sip design question<br>> >> To: ryanhuff@outlook.com<br>> >> CC: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<br>> ><br>> >><br>> >> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought cube-ha was missing from<br>> >> the code on these? same as the ASR's since they are all running<br>> >> ios-xe.<br>> >><br>> >> I have not tested it myself, just doing a lot of reading in<br>> >> preparation of deploying these.<br>> >><br>> >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Ryan Huff <ryanhuff@outlook.com> wrote:<br>> >> > I have a pair of cubes on 4000 series ISRs. I want to do cube-ha on the<br>> >> > ccm<br>> >> > facing side and the itsp facing side.<br>> >> ><br>> >> > 1.) Am I better off just doing HSRP on both sides (which is 70% of<br>> >> > cube-ha<br>> >> > anyway) or is it practical to do the connected call failover portion?<br>> >> ><br>> >> > 2.) If I include the connected call failover, which side would I do that<br>> >> > one, 1 or both (ccm facing side or itsp facing side)?<br>> >> ><br>> >> > Thanks,<br>> >> ><br>> >> > Ryan<br>> >> ><br>> >> ><br>> >> > _______________________________________________<br>> >> > cisco-voip mailing list<br>> >> > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<br>> >> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip<br>> >> ><br></div> </div></body>
</html>