CME routers' IVR redundancy

Hello everyone! I have a question regarding CME routers redundancy. We have to 3925 routers, one is only telephony router witch service module with CUE for IVR. The second one is also 3925 router but is beeing used for networking purposes. My goal is to implement high availabilty for CME using second router as a backup CME. Since it doesn't have service module for IVR, could the xml IVR configuration be used as a backup on the second CME if the primary goes down? And what about performance, should some extra RAM on this backup router has to be added for proper IVR functioning, considering one PRI connection?
Would appreciate your usefull help.

You can modify your configuration to use the local gateway at each site for outbound calls..Configure each ccme to have the local phones register to it and modify your dial-peers to use the local gateway first for outbound calls and the second ccme as backup..
You will need to work with your provider to determione how calls will be routed inbound when one of the PRI fails

Similar Messages

How to protect a PIM-SM network from unauthorized pim routers and multicast sources?

Hi,
we're using pim sparse mode in a customer network with catalyst 2/3/4/6K switches, all multicast routers are redundant with pim dr running for access subnets. RPs are configured with anycast rp.
A) Is there any possiblity to prevent rogue pim routers/igmp queriers connected to host ports from getting connected to the legal pim routers and from getting involved in the local igmp traffic?
Maybe like DHCP Snooping used with DHCP. I read that in the latest Sup2T ios (http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/td/docs/switches/lan/catalyst6500/ios/15-2SY/config_guide/sup2T/15_2_sy_swcg_2T.pdf) there is a feature called 'ipv4 router guard' which does exactly what we're looking for:
'When configured, the Router Guard feature makes the specified port a host port only. The port is prevented from becoming a router port, even if a multicast router control packets are received. In addition, any control packets normally received from multicast routers, such as IGMP queries and PIM joins, will also be discarded by this filter.'
Afaik, PIM authentication isn't supported in current catalyst ios versions.
Using a normal port ACL is not an option in our case because of a management decision.
B) Is there any possibility to prevent (on a per-subnet basis) rogue sources from sending multicast streams to legal multicast-groups?
Maybe, can I configure a svi of a host subnet or a host port to drop any incoming multicast stream while still accepting IGMP and sending out legal multicast streams?
Using 'ip pim accept-register' command on the rp is not an option because we've tons of legal sources which would end in an very huge error-prone acl
Unfortunately, a normal ACL is not an option here, too.
Best Regards
Thorsten

We use two pim routers in each host subnet for redundancy, they elect the PIM DR.
Does pim passive mode work here?
(Config Guide: If the ip pim passive command is configured on an interface enabled for IP multicast, the router will operate this interface in PIM passive mode, which means that the router will not send PIM messages on the interface nor will it accept PIM messages from other routers across this interface. The router will instead consider that it is the only PIM router on the network and thus act as the DR and also as the DF for all bidir-PIM group ranges. IGMP operations are unaffected by this command. ... The redundant PIM stub router topology is not supported. The redundant topology exists when there is more than one PIM router forwarding multicast traffic to a single access domain. PIM messages are blocked, and the PIM asset and designated router election mechanisms are not supported on the PIM passive interfaces.)
ip pim neighbor-filter maybe would work to prevent rogue pim routers to connect to the legal pim routers but wouldn't rogue pim routers still be able to manipulate the layer2 switch to send all igmp traffic to them and not to the legal pim routers?

QoS for FRATM Internetworking

Here is the scenario.
We have a customer who has tow routers connected to an ATM cloud via an OC3 interface, and around 200 remote offices connected to the central office via Frame Relay data links (all of then). Recently, our customer implemented VoIP on his network and right now we are having problems with voice quality. In the case there is a network diagram with the actual network topology.
If you look at the diagram (attached in the post), our customer has tow routers 7507 in the core. Both routers are redundant with each other and all the remote sites are connected to both routers with two different PVCs.
In some sites the customer has routers 1751-V connected with a PABX using FXS ports. All remote routers consult a Gatekeeper which is located in the central office and the gatekeeper decides if the call gets routed or not.
Now, when we try making a call from the Central Office to one remote site, the call gets through but the end party sometimes cannot hear the person in the CO, but the person in the CO can hear the end party perfectly without problems. The issue is only with the remote offices, the CO can hear end party without problems.
Weve been implementing QoS techniques like RSVP in the remote sites, WFQ and others without success. Our last attempt was with policy maps and class maps and didnt get a success result.
What would be the best QoS practice in this case?
We would like to implement a QoS technique which ensures the voice traffic has priority over all other traffic and ensure the quality of the voice.
Attached to this post are the configurations of the 2 core routers and one remote office.

For troubleshooting one way voice issues, please check the below link
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/788/AVVID/fix_1way_voice.html#addlinfo

DLSW and 4510

Hi,
We are trying to configure dlsw on a Cat4510R switch that is connected to 2 routers for redundancy. DLSW is not supported on the 4500 switches. What is the best way to configure DLSW in this situation? Looking for configuration assistance.
Thanks,
Greg

You don't need to do anything in the switch.
The routers must be configured properly, and the details are dependant by the topology and applications.
In case of doubts, I recommend you engage a reputable consultant or certified partner with proven SNA-specific experience.

WAAS Inline & HSRP Deployment

I'm running in a problem where auto-discovery is failing. We have remote-offices with one router and one wae in inline deployment, so far so good, this works perfect.
On the Main-Office we have two routers for redundancy, on the lan site we use hsrp.
Can I use both inline-cards two for each router ?
-----|- inlinegroup1---hsrp-router1-|--mpls
lan--|- inlinegroup2---hsrp-router2-|
or do I have to put both routers behind one pair of inline-card ?
-----|- inlinegroup1-|-hsrp-router1-|
lan--|- inlinegroup1-|-hsrp-router2-|--mpls
Kind Regards
-Lukas

Lukas,
If traffic for a connection flows asymmetrically through both inline groups, then CSCsk47177 can prevent optimization. This is schedule to be fixed in the next WAAS maintenance release.
Thanks,
Zach

Campus design

Hello all,
I'm relative new in cisco networking and i need some clarifications on cisco hierarchical campus network design.
1. Why do i have to use L3 switches on the core and distribution layers; A router implementing CEF doesn't performs switching in the same speed;
2.In the access-distribution layer(switch block), does 1 vlan has to be restricted in the boundaries of 1 access switch or is it better to extend to more than 1 access switches by using L2 ports on distribution switch? (I think that L3 traffic load balancing on the uplinks to distribution switches - using 2 distrib. switches - is done only if configure 1 vlan per access switch, doesn't it?)
ANY help will be appreciated.
THANKS
Peter

I'm not a desing expert, but I work on a network that follows cisco hierarchical designs.
1. the question should then be? Will you be using a layer 2 switch to connect 2 cores and 2 distributions routers (for redundancy and load balancing)?
2. For what Ive seen its better to keep the vlans for just a single access switch to avoid STP issues (and suboptimal layer2 paths).
For the load balancing, you can configure HSRP for vlans configured in more than 1 access switch.
Im not sure I've followed your questions.
But, just my thoughts on the subject.
Vlad

WAAS: Using 4port HWIC module on a router

Hello -
I was wondering if there are any performance issues with using a 4-port HCWIC ethernet module on a WAN router for connecting the WAAS device rather than trunking down to your switch? We have this deployed today in all of our remote sites using 2 WAN routers for redundancy along with multicast for the WCCP registrations. We do sometimes get dropped packets when you do a show int sum on the WAAS connected interfaces, but it's not incrementing rapidly.
Thanks,
John

Of course I'm doing optimization on the WAAS that's all the whole point of having WAAS. I don't think you understand my question; you only posted marketing information which I do not need. My question was, are there any performance issue with using the 4-port hwic module on an ISR router?

Maximum cos1 (voice traffic) supported by Cisco ASR 1006 router

Dear Team,
Please confirm the maximum cos 1 traffic supported by cisco ASR 1006 router.

Yes, it would. If you are planning on terminating a single site on this router I would spread over multiple routers for redundancy.
Table 6 explains number of ports and channels providing you have the DSPs:
http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/products/collateral/routers/2800-series-integrated-services-routers-isr/product_data_sheet0900aecd8057f2e0.pdf

MPLS and dual equal-cost paths

If a site has two outbound WAN routers (for redundancy) that are configured as PE routers with the WAN interfaces configured with MPLS, will two LSPs be created using LDP (one from each PE) allowing the WAN routers to loadbalance traffic across the MPLS backbone?

Load balancing is very much possible in MPLS environment. Following are the general rules for load balancing labeled packets
1. If the MPLS payload is an IPV4 packet, the load balancing is done by hashing the source and destination IP address of the IPv4 header
2.IF the MPLS payload is an IPv6 packet, the load balancing is done by hashing the source and destination IP address of the IPv6 header.
3.If the MPLS payload is not an IPv4 packet, the load balancing is done by looking at the value of the bottom label
Label stack does not have protocol identifier field so to know what is the MPLS payload is, router can look first nibble following the MPLS label stack, if it is 4 then router considers this an IPv4 packet and performs IPv4 CEF hashing. if it is 6 , MPLS payload is considered IPv6, and the router performs IPv6 CEF hashing
For more information you can refer book "MPLS fundamentals" by Luc De Ghein.

Two 2911 routers and 3560 switches (load balancing and redundancy)

Good day, Sir !
I have a model with hierarchical model. Two routers 2911 and two core switches 3560, two providers.
I want to design redundancy scheme. Can you advice me how is better to do it ? here you can find image with topology, can you say is it good idea to connect with devices in this way ?
Hope on you help ! Thank you !!!

Hi,
If you want to configure redundancy in your network on LAN you can use HSRP and from the WAN side depending on the connection with the provider you can either use BGP or any IGP.
If you want to have load balancing as well with redundancy you can define differnt HSRP group for different vlan and on the wan with BGP you can use multipath option or with IGP you can manipulate the route matric.
Thanks & Regards
Sandeep

Achieving Redundancy with Cisco Routers and Switches

I have two 2600 routers connected to two different ISP and in turn these are connected back to our head office to a 3560 series switch.Iam trying to set up the different connections such that if one ISP connection fails the other one takes over immeadiately.I know i could use HSRP for redundancy but the problem iam facing is the two routers are in different subnets, so it may not be possible to use HSRP in this case.I could be wrong but any help will be appreciated.

Hi,
some questions to ask you
1- 3550 is working as L3 or L2
if L3 than you can use static route pointing to two different router.if L2 than use secondary address in ethernet infaces of router and run HSRP but for this you need to match vlan.
2- if intervlan is configured on router's than it will be very easy.
HTH if not write here

H323 redundancy between routers

I have 2 2800 series routers with E1 circuits on both, i can place calls on both gateways without any issues. If i pull the E1 circuit on one router, but still have IP connectivity to it from the callmanager, the route list route group will not forward outing calls to the second gateway. I'm wondering if this level of redundancy is going to work with H323. By the way if i loose ip conectivity with the first gateway the route list route group does force the outbond calls to the next H323 gateway and all works fine. Any help would be good.
dave white

Hi, why don't you use MGCP instead H.323? it's the best way to have redundancy.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk1077/technologies_configuration_example09186a00801ad22f.shtml

Redundant routers with IPSEC failover

For the failover between routers I plan to use HSRP:
####### Router 1 #######
interface FastEthernet0/0
ip address 151.4.0.21 255.255.255.0
standby 1 ip 151.4.0.20
standby 1 priority 120
standby 1 preempt
######## Router 2########
interface FastEthernet0/0
ip address 64.232.113.10 255.255.255.0
standby 1 ip 151.4.0.20
standby 1 priority 110
standby 1 preempt
Each router is connected to the internet via different ISPs. Router 1 has ISP A and router 2 has ISP B. I plan on using an IPSEC site-to-site VPN. How do I configure each router so when router 1 fails, router 2 will not only pick up all outgoing LAN traffic via HSRP, but also create the site-to-site VPN?

Hi,
Here are the guidelines for configuring the scenario which you described :
Configuring HSRP with IPsec
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/sec_secure_connectivity/configuration/guide/sec_vpn_ha_enhance_ps6441_TSD_Products_Configuration_Guide_Chapter.html#wp1056265
First you need to name the the HSRP group :
-> standby name group-name
e.g. standby name TEST
-> you define a on both devices a crypto map named e.g. called CRYMAP_TEST
-> then apply the crypto map on both devices (router1 and router2 ) to F0/0 :
-> crypto map map-name redundancy [standby-name]
e.g. crypto map CRYMAP_TEST redundancy TEST
-> when defining the crypto peer setting on RemoteSite1 you define one peer only i.e. 151.4.0.20 (HSRP VIP)
So basically you will end up with a stateless IPSec High Availaibility setup.
Istvan

Currently have house wide wireless network and using external HD (USB) for time machine. HD broken. would Time capsule work with current routers etc or make them redundant?

I currently have a large house wide wireless network and I am using a dedicated Buffalo HD with USB for time machine. The HD has gone bad and can't be repaired. I am thinking of replacing it with a Time Capsule. Will this fit in with my current routers etc, render them redundent ? I THOUGHT THAT THE HD I BOUGHT WAS OF GOOD QUAILTY BUT IT HAS BROKEN AFTER 2 YEARS. HOW LONG CAN ONE HOPE FOR A TIME CAPSULE TO LIVE (USING QUALITY SURGE DEVICES ETC) ? Does one need to backup the backups?
ALSO: Is ther e any way to back up from Time Machine off site ( mobile me etc) in case the house burns down?

Steve M. wrote:
I know I should have redundant backups and should probably have a second external HD and eventually will.
Yes, that's best.
But for now, if I partition (I'm assuming I should) a new 1 TB external HD, how big should I make the TM partition vs. the SD partition at this point assuming I have under 100 GB on my internal Mac HD? Is this a feasible way of doing things here in the near term.
Your best bet is to make your TM partition 2-3 times the size of the amount of data you anticipate backing-up. Put it first on the drive; that way, later on you can delete the partition below it, expand the TM partition, and make a new, smaller partition for SD (or use the whole drive). See #1, #3, #5 and #6 in the Frequently Asked Questions *User Tip,* also at the top of this forum, for details.
By the way, any recommendations on which peripheral HDs to consider? I was very surprised on a recent visit to my local Apple Store that they have a large stock of WD My Studio drives. I mentioned to an Apple sales person that I had always heard WDs were kind of a no-no among Mac users but she assured me the current crop of them were much improved. Any comment on that??
Most any drive will work with Macs, and Time Machine.
If you're going to put a "bootable clone" on it, be sure it's a bootable drive. Most PPC Macs can boot only from FireWire; most Intels can boot from F/W or USB. But some Western Digitals won't boot a Mac. Their list of which ones should and +should not+ boot: http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc.cfg/php/enduser/stdadp.php?pfaqid=1787. But note the disclaimer that they don't support it +*at all.+*.
In addition, many of them have a built-in sleep mode that cannot be disabled, and sometimes interferes with Time Machine backups: http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc.cfg/php/enduser/stdadp.php?pfaqid=1376

Redundancy from ibm os/390 tcpip to dual routers

I have 2 routers that have single escon connections to the same mainframe tcpip stack (os/390 2.9). What is the best way to provide failover from mainframe should one router fail. this involves mainly ibm tcpip configuration and would prefer to do without routing on mainframe and have to pass routing updates between mainframe and routers. Has anybody set up this scenario?

Have you looked at using VIPA .
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ioss390/ios390cg/cgfault.htm

CME routers' IVR redundancy

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for