<div><div dir="auto">Anthony,</div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Meant 12.5.5. Looks like you’ll be doing similar setup as this one. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 5:35 PM Anthony Holloway <<a href="mailto:avholloway%2Bcisco-voip@gmail.com">avholloway+cisco-voip@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Erick,<div><br></div><div>It doesn't look like there was an X8.12.5. Did you mean X12.5? Or was that a version they pulled?<div><br></div><div><a href="https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/unified-communications/expressway-series/products-release-notes-list.html" target="_blank">https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/unified-communications/expressway-series/products-release-notes-list.html</a> </div><div><br></div><div>What is "this" in the context of your question? The Jabber IM only, or the TC/CE endpoints?<br></div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 5:09 PM Erick Bergquist <<a href="mailto:erickbee@gmail.com" target="_blank">erickbee@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Is there a 8.12.5 enhancement to help with this specifically? On<br>
8.11.4 at moment.<br>
<br>
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 2:58 PM Benjamin Turner <<a href="mailto:benmturner@hotmail.com" target="_blank">benmturner@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> 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......<br>
><br>
> Get Outlook for Android<br>
><br>
> ________________________________<br>
> From: cisco-voip <<a href="mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net</a>> on behalf of Erick Bergquist <<a href="mailto:erickbee@gmail.com" target="_blank">erickbee@gmail.com</a>><br>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 4:05:06 PM<br>
> To: Ryan Ratliff (rratliff) <<a href="mailto:rratliff@cisco.com" target="_blank">rratliff@cisco.com</a>><br>
> Cc: voip puck <<a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a>><br>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] 8865s and MRA CUCM registration failover issue<br>
><br>
> Understood, will keep pushing that angle and try to get some answers<br>
> on the differences and 88xx MRA capabilities.<br>
><br>
> Thanks.<br>
><br>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 1:57 PM Ryan Ratliff (rratliff)<br>
> <<a href="mailto:rratliff@cisco.com" target="_blank">rratliff@cisco.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > The implementation is different for TC/CE, phones, and Jabber (Teams I would expect to mirror Jabber).<br>
> ><br>
> > 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.<br>
> ><br>
> > -Ryan<br>
> ><br>
> > On 10/30/19, 3:54 PM, "Erick Bergquist" <<a href="mailto:erickbee@gmail.com" target="_blank">erickbee@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > Pair of expressways, clustered. DX 70/80s happen to work fine with<br>
> > all 3 over MRA.<br>
> ><br>
> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 1:13 PM Ryan Ratliff (rratliff)<br>
> > <<a href="mailto:rratliff@cisco.com" target="_blank">rratliff@cisco.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > ><br>
> > > 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.<br>
> > > This is why you don't get any redundancy without a clustered Expressway.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > 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.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > If anyone happens to have a cluster of 3 Expressways to test with, I wonder how that would look.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > - Ryan<br>
> > ><br>
> > > On 10/30/19, 2:57 PM, "cisco-voip on behalf of Erick Bergquist" <<a href="mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net</a> on behalf of <a href="mailto:erickbee@gmail.com" target="_blank">erickbee@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Following up on this, still working to figure this out and have been<br>
> > > working with TAC.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Does anyone know if the 8865s when using MRA use only the first 2<br>
> > > servers in UCM group or will also the third server if present?<br>
> > ><br>
> > > On the 8865 phone web page it shows all 3 servers from UCM group.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > On the phone information page on phone itself, it shows the Active<br>
> > > Server and Stand-by Server only.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > When we make the first server unreachable (CCM1) the 8865 over MRA<br>
> > > fails to second server CCM2 fine and the phone information screen<br>
> > > shows CCM1 as Active Server and the Stand-by Server field is empty.<br>
> > > The web page of phone shows all 3 servers still with CCM2 as Active.<br>
> > > When we make CCM2 unreachable the phone just spins and never goes to<br>
> > > the third server over MRA. Phones on-premise use the third server<br>
> > > fine.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > I can not find any documentation on this and so far no one seems to<br>
> > > really have an answer if 88xx phones over MRA will use the third<br>
> > > server in UCM group.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Thanks.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 12:25 PM Erick Bergquist <<a href="mailto:erickbee@gmail.com" target="_blank">erickbee@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > Thanks, I've seen that bug before (and another cisco doc) and that bug<br>
> > > > says fixed in 8.11.x which we are on.<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > All 3 CUCMs are in our SRV records and show active on the Expressway side.<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 12:04 PM Brian Meade <<a href="mailto:bmeade90@vt.edu" target="_blank">bmeade90@vt.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > > You're may be hitting this limitation- <a href="https://bst.cloudapps.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCvj49486" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://bst.cloudapps.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCvj49486</a><br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > > If not, are all 3 CUCM servers in the _cisco-uds SRV record and resolvable by the Expressway-C?<br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:47 AM Erick Bergquist <<a href="mailto:erickbee@gmail.com" target="_blank">erickbee@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > > > >><br>
> > > > >> Has anyone seen where 8865 model phones don't register over MRA in<br>
> > > > >> the UCM group if the some servers are not reachable?<br>
> > > > >><br>
> > > > >> 8865s with 12.5.1 SR3 firmware<br>
> > > > >> 12.5.1 SU1 CUCM<br>
> > > > >><br>
> > > > >> 2 expressway pairs<br>
> > > > >><br>
> > > > >> UCM group order (same as service group),<br>
> > > > >><br>
> > > > >> CCM1<br>
> > > > >> CCM2<br>
> > > > >> CCM3<br>
> > > > >><br>
> > > > >> When CCM1 and CCM2 are unreachable the MRA 8865 phone just spins at registering.<br>
> > > > >> Once CCM1 or CCM2 become reachable, the phone comes backs up.<br>
> > > > >><br>
> > > > >> DX 70's and DX 80's register fine when CCM3 is only available over MRA.<br>
> > > > >><br>
> > > > >><br>
> > > > >> Thanks,<br>
> > > > >> Erick<br>
> > > > >> _______________________________________________<br>
> > > > >> cisco-voip mailing list<br>
> > > > >> <a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a><br>
> > > > >> <a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip</a><br>
> > > _______________________________________________<br>
> > > cisco-voip mailing list<br>
> > > <a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a><br>
> > > <a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip</a><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> cisco-voip mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a><br>
> <a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
cisco-voip mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a><br>
<a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div></div>