UCCE Call flow to load balance & redundancy

Dear NetPro gurus,
I have used Cisco UCCX for a number of years but I'm a newbie to UCCE.
1. For UCCE, can each site have multiple PGs, Routers, Loggers & ICMs (for instance, can i have 2 PGs on site A & 2 PGs on site B (a total of 4 x PGs)? Or each site can only have 1 PG, 1 Router / 1 Logger and 1 ICM?
2. Is there a way where i can say force all my Customer Services CSQ to go via Site A? And all my IT Helpdesk CSQ to go via Site B? But if either site failover, the traffic will automatically fialover to the other sites PG, Loggers / Routers, and ICMs?
Would greatly appreciated if anyone can shed some lights on this.
Cheers,
Hunt

Hi Lee,
answer to your first Q:
UCCE will be having one router, one logger in each sites for one UCCE instance.
with respect to PG, you can have 2 PG on each side. It will work as active stand by mode.
for second question, you can do this based on selecting routing client from different site. Please provide call flow and what will be the VRU (CVP or IPIVR)
hope above will give you some light on your query.
Regards,
Shalid K.C

Similar Messages

RE: (forte-users) Call to the load-balanced SO not throughrouter

We never call an SO from within an SO. Instead we do the following :
MySO is mapped to MySOclass.
MySOclass is a facade which has an attribute for every Policy Manager
related to this SO.
Each Policy manager is instanciated in MySOclass.
Each Policy manager has an attribute called Parent.
Parent is defined by MySOclass to be self.
If two Policy managers need to work together we invoke methods via the
parent attribute :
Example
I have a partition for Enrolments.
It has three Policy Managers within it
a Students Policy Manager (with a Add, Delete, Get methods)
a Courses Policy Manager (with a Add, Delete, Get methods).
an Enrolments Policy Manager (with a Add, Delete, Get methods).
To enable this partition we have defined :
EnrolmentsSO (environment visible, message duration) with the EnrolmentsMgr
class as its related class.
The EnrolmentsMgr class has the following methods and attributes :
Methods :
AddStudent
AddCourse
AddEnrolment
GetStudent
GetCourse
GetEnrolment
DeleteStudent
DeleteCourse
DeleteEnrolment
All of these methods do a one line return statement, simply passing the
method invocation to
the appropriate Policy Manager. For example AddStudent would say
Return theStudentPM.AddStudent(pInStudentParams : pInStudentParams)
: pOutStudentParams
In the Init method for the EnrolmentsMgr we instanciate the following
attributes :
theStudentPM (which is typed to the StudentPM class)
theCoursePM (which is typed to the CoursePM class)
theEnrolmentsPM (which is typed to the EnrolmentsPM class)
Also in the Init method we set an attribute (called parent) on each
PM to the value of Self.
Then when one PM needs to invoke a method on another PM we simply do :
For example in the theEnrolmentPM.GetEnrolment method we need to get
Students and Courses
thus we code :
Parent.GetStudent(pInStudentParams = pInStudentParams) : pOutStudentParams
Parent.GetCourse((pInCourseParams = pOutStudentParams.CourseStuff) :
pOutCourseParams
Build Enrol details based on student / course stuff.
Return EnrolmentParams.
Hope this makes sense.
Regards,
Chris Will, Dept. of Educ. Training, ITB, Sydney, Australia
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Sham [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, 8 October 1999 9:35
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: (forte-users) Replicating the PersistenceMgrSO
Hi,
Whenever you make a call to your load-balanced SO, it
would go through the router. That is what I
understand. No matter you make the call from inside
or outside the SO.
Secondly, you can turn on the "fail-over" option of a
router but not load-balanced it. On these routers,
you can check their instruments to see which one is
really running.
Hope this help.
Regards,
Peter Sham.

We never call an SO from within an SO. Instead we do the following :
MySO is mapped to MySOclass.
MySOclass is a facade which has an attribute for every Policy Manager
related to this SO.
Each Policy manager is instanciated in MySOclass.
Each Policy manager has an attribute called Parent.
Parent is defined by MySOclass to be self.
If two Policy managers need to work together we invoke methods via the
parent attribute :
Example
I have a partition for Enrolments.
It has three Policy Managers within it
a Students Policy Manager (with a Add, Delete, Get methods)
a Courses Policy Manager (with a Add, Delete, Get methods).
an Enrolments Policy Manager (with a Add, Delete, Get methods).
To enable this partition we have defined :
EnrolmentsSO (environment visible, message duration) with the EnrolmentsMgr
class as its related class.
The EnrolmentsMgr class has the following methods and attributes :
Methods :
AddStudent
AddCourse
AddEnrolment
GetStudent
GetCourse
GetEnrolment
DeleteStudent
DeleteCourse
DeleteEnrolment
All of these methods do a one line return statement, simply passing the
method invocation to
the appropriate Policy Manager. For example AddStudent would say
Return theStudentPM.AddStudent(pInStudentParams : pInStudentParams)
: pOutStudentParams
In the Init method for the EnrolmentsMgr we instanciate the following
attributes :
theStudentPM (which is typed to the StudentPM class)
theCoursePM (which is typed to the CoursePM class)
theEnrolmentsPM (which is typed to the EnrolmentsPM class)
Also in the Init method we set an attribute (called parent) on each
PM to the value of Self.
Then when one PM needs to invoke a method on another PM we simply do :
For example in the theEnrolmentPM.GetEnrolment method we need to get
Students and Courses
thus we code :
Parent.GetStudent(pInStudentParams = pInStudentParams) : pOutStudentParams
Parent.GetCourse((pInCourseParams = pOutStudentParams.CourseStuff) :
pOutCourseParams
Build Enrol details based on student / course stuff.
Return EnrolmentParams.
Hope this makes sense.
Regards,
Chris Will, Dept. of Educ. Training, ITB, Sydney, Australia
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Sham [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, 8 October 1999 9:35
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: (forte-users) Replicating the PersistenceMgrSO
Hi,
Whenever you make a call to your load-balanced SO, it
would go through the router. That is what I
understand. No matter you make the call from inside
or outside the SO.
Secondly, you can turn on the "fail-over" option of a
router but not load-balanced it. On these routers,
you can check their instruments to see which one is
really running.
Hope this help.
Regards,
Peter Sham.

Call to the load-balanced SO not through router

Hi all
This in fact not correct - if you make a call to the load-balanced SO,
from within that SO it will not go through the router. You can work around
it quite easily
with a simple Forwarding Dispatcher (design pattern).
Whenever you make a call to your load-balanced SO,
it
would go through the router. That is what I
understand. No matter you make the call from inside
or outside the SO.
Anton van Niekerk
[email protected]

Hi all
This in fact not correct - if you make a call to the load-balanced SO,
from within that SO it will not go through the router. You can work around
it quite easily
with a simple Forwarding Dispatcher (design pattern).
Whenever you make a call to your load-balanced SO,
it
would go through the router. That is what I
understand. No matter you make the call from inside
or outside the SO.
Anton van Niekerk
[email protected]

Load Balance & redundancy for internet from 2 different sites?

Hi,
we have 2 core sites where our servers are situated. Both sites are connected via a ptp link.
All of our clients/sites reach these two sites via our MPLS network and they never route via the ptp link which is solely used between the two core sites.
One of the sites has an ASA which goes out to our internet. We are thinking of replicating this on our other site.
How would we go about load balancing the internet connection ie 50% go out on site A & 50% go out on site B?
And if site A goes down, everything goes out via site B and vice versa?
Diagram attached....
Thank you,
Louis

Hi Louis, you could set default routes on the ASA's with tracking, and use ospf downstream to inject the default route in to the network with default information originate - this will only advertise out a default route if it has it in the routing table. With SLA you can track internet reachability by IP SLA echo to something like 8.8.8.8. Both sides can advertise this in to the network, if one goes then there is one left. Just be mindful of the policies and NAT required, you will have to duplicate the rules on the ASA's. With the NAT you have to ensure, that outgoing traffic comes back in the same path it left so it doesn't break connections.

Multiple dgraph clustering (load balancing) OOTB available?

Hello,
We have 2 dgraphs running in parallel having the same data to share the load of the clients.
I would like to know if there is any OOTB solution provided by Endeca where in these two dgraphs can share the load. OR I need to use an external load balancer for the same?
If there is any document that explains the configuration for OOTB Endeca solution, please let me know
Thanks!

Hi,
yes I know...
i tried to check if they were still available...but found none,
that's why I said if you want me to send them email me ...(I downloaded them from Eden ) and the files aren't too big
regards
Saleh
29/11/12 : copy of the document called Simple MDEX Load Balancing with Apache HTTP Server (Endeca)
Endeca Solution Article Simple MDEX Load Balancing with Apache HTTP Server
Endeca Solution Article
Simple MDEX Load Balancing with Apache HTTP Server
By Robert Dennis
Last Updated: December 2010
Endeca Product Versions: 5.0+
This document describes how to set up a simple load balancing and failover solution using Apache HTTP server. This provides a cost effective mechanism leveraging widely available open source technologies to address simple infrastructure needs. This document includes the following sections:
 Introduction
 Configuration Steps
 References
Endeca Solution Article Simple MDEX Load Balancing with Apache HTTP Server
Endeca Confidential 2 of 5
Introduction
Load balancers are the preferred solution for providing scalability, redundancy, and fail-over for MDEX Engine queries. Typically, load balancing and failover are accomplished with the use of dedicated load balancing hardware. For some Endeca implementations, however, a robust mechanism for load balancing may not be available or required by the customer. For more information on the basics of load balancing an Endeca application, see the “Endeca Load Balancing Best Practices” Solution Article available on EDeN.
This document describes the configuration steps involved in leveraging Apache’s default load balancing mechanisms to provide a simple load balancing solution for an Endeca application. In this scenario, Apache will sit between the Endeca presentation API housed in a web application and redundant MDEX engines. Apache performs the duties of a simple load balancer and failover broker, managing query requests from the application tier to specific MDEX engines.
Configuration Steps
The described configuration leverages Apache 2.2 HTTP Server as the load balancing mechanism between two identical MDEX engines all residing on a single server. The sample configuration expects the Apache HTTP server to be listening on port 5555 and the MDEX engines to be listening on ports 8000 and 8001. These can be changed as appropriate for a given environment.
1. In the Apache httpd.conf, enable the server for listening on port 5555.
Endeca Solution Article Simple MDEX Load Balancing with Apache HTTP Server
Endeca Confidential 3 of 5
2. Enable the following modules by un-commenting the appropriate loadmodule statements in the httpd.conf file. These modules include: mod_proxy, mod_proxy_balancer, mod_proxy_connect, mod_proxy_http, mod_negotiation.
3. Include the httpd-vhosts.conf file by un-commenting the appropriate line in the httpd.conf file.
4. Save the httpd.conf file and open the httpd-vhosts.conf file. Append the below information and save the file.
Endeca Solution Article Simple MDEX Load Balancing with Apache HTTP Server
Endeca Confidential 4 of 5
NameVirtualHost *:5555 <VirtualHost *:5555> ServerName localhost ProxyPass / balancer://dgraphs/ ProxyPassReverse / balancer://dgraphs/ <Proxy balancer://dgraphs> BalancerMember http://localhost:8000 loadfactor=1 retry=0 BalancerMember http://localhost:8001 loadfactor=1 retry=0 </Proxy> </VirtualHost> <Location /balancer-manager> SetHandler balancer-manager </Location>
The “retry” parameter associated with Balance Members disables the period of inactivity for a particular worker after Apache determines it is offline. The default is 60 seconds. It is recommended that this is set to a low number such as 0.
In environments where particular MDEX engines are targeted for additional load, the “loadfactor” parameter associated with Balance Members can be adjusted. Higher values ensure that the load balancing algorithm that is used will route the traffic load accordingly to specific Balance Members.
5. Restart Apache.
6. Within the UI application, configure the host and port of the HttpENEConnection to the host and port of the load balancer (e.g. localhost:5555).
Endeca Solution Article Simple MDEX Load Balancing with Apache HTTP Server
Endeca Confidential 5 of 5
Apache HTTP Server is now properly configured to serve as a load balancer for the MDEX Engines.
References
“Endeca Load Balancing Best Practices” Solution Article (EDeN)
Apache Module mod_proxy
Apache Module mod_proxy_balancer
Apache Module mod_proxy_connect
Apache Module mod_proxy_http
Apache Module mod_negotiation
Edited by: sabdelhalim on Nov 28, 2012 5:46 PM

MPLS/VPN network load balancing in the core

Hi,
I've an issue about cef based load-balancing in the MPLS core in MPLS/VPN environment. If you consider flow-based load balancing, the path (out interface) will be chosen based on source-destination IP address. What about in MPLS/VPN environment? The hash will be based on PE router src-dst loopback addresses, or vrf packet src-dst in P and PE router? The topology would be:
CE---PE===P===PE---CE
I'm interested in load balancing efficiency if I duplicate the link between P and PE routers.
Thank you for your help!
Gabor

Hi,
On the PE router you could set different types and 2 levels of load-balancing.
For instance, in case of a DUAL-homed site, subnet A prefix for VPN A could be advertised in the VPN by PE1 or PE2.
PE1 receives this prefix via eBGP session from CE1 and keep this route as best due to external state.
PE2 receives this prefix via eBGP session from CE2 and keep this route as best due to external state.
                             eBGP
                     PE1 ---------CE1
PE3----------P1                          Subnet A
                     PE2----------CE2 /
                            eBGP
Therefore from PE3 point of view, 2 routes are available assuming that IGP metric for PE3/PE1 is equal to PE3/PE2.
The a 1rst level of load-sharing can be achieve thanks to the maximum-paths ibgp number command.
2 MP-BGP routes are received on PE3:
PE3->PE1->CE1->subnet A
PE3->PE2->CE2->subnet A
To use both routes you must set the number at 2 at least : maximum-paths ibgp 2
But gess what, in the real world an MPLS backbone hardly garantee an equal IGP cost between 2 Egress PE for a given prefix.
So it is often necessary to ignore the IGP metric by adding the "unequal-cost" keyword: maximum-paths unequal-cost ibgp 2
By default the load-balancing is called "per-session": source and destination addresses are considered to choose the path and the outgoing interface avoiding reordering the packets on the target site. Overwise it is possible to use "per-packet" load-balancing.
Then a 2nd load-sharing level can occur.
For instance:
         __P1__PE1__CE1
PE3           \/                   Subnet A
        \ __P2__PE2__CE2
There is still 2 MP-BGP paths :
PE3->P1->PE1->CE1->subnet A
PE3->P1->PE2->CE2->subnet A
But this time for 2 MP-BGP paths 4 IGP path are available:
PE3->P1->PE1->CE1->subnet A
PE3->P1->PE2->CE2->subnet A
PE3->P2->PE1->CE1->subnet A
PE3->P2->PE2->CE2->subnet A
For a load-balancing to be active between those 4 paths, they must exist in the routing table thanks to the "maximum-path 4 "command in the IGP (ex OSPF) process.
Therefore if those 4 paths are equal-cost IGP paths then a 2nd level load-balancing is achieved. the default behabior is the same source destination mechanism to selected the "per-session" path as mentionned before.
On an LSP each LSR could use this feature.
BR

Load balancing & reduncey with 2 Pri Lines

Dear Friends.......
I have a requirement of VOIP setup and I have 2 Pri Lines of MPLS cloud.
I have 3 r routers, router1 is for IPS 1 (Pri 1), router 2 is for ISP 2 (Pri 2) and router 3 is for Load balancing.
plz explain me how to config load balancing & redundancy....
my another question is E1 Leased line will cupport voip?
ISP 1 IP_172.16.10.1/24
ISP 2 IP_170.16.5.1/24....
Plz explain with config,....
Thanks & Regards,
Srinivas. N

Hi Alex
Sorry, I have 2 PRIs, PRI one is for main line & PRI two is for backup line, both should work as a load balancing... they are for placing voice calls to the PSTN ..
My concept is I have 3 routers... Router 1 is for PRI one, Router 2 is for PRI two & Router three is for load balancing...
Plz explain me how to config three router...
I hope In router one need to config with pri voice channels, In router two need to config with pri voice channels & In router three need to config load balancing...
Thanks & Regards,
Srinivas. N.

EIGRP vs Multilink for Load Balancing

I'm planning on implement a solution of VoIP over a 2 parallel WAN links.
Because the bandwidth on both links is less than 512kbps, its important to load balance the traffic between both.
EIGRP its implemented over all the network, so i have the option to use variance to load balance between this links (512kbps and 384kbps)
My second option is tu join both link with MULTILINK.
I want to know which of this options is recomended considering that Data and VoIP will go trought this conection.
Anothe consideration is that i need to implement QoS.
Thanks
Osvaldo U.

Hello,
My personal recommendation is to use EIGRP. EIGRP has a feature called Unequal Cost Load Balancing, which basically unequally loads the links between two neighbors based on the link's bandwidth. In the event that one link goes down, EIGRP would immediately redirect all flow over a single link.
Please note that EIGRP is a proprietary routing protocol, so if an ISP is involved between the endpoints, it is unlikely to be supported (look at MLPPP some more) and that with low-bandwidth links, some pretty aggresive QoS settings involving Weighted Random Early Detection (WRED), and Low Latency Queuing (LLQ) will definitely be needed to make the links usable with the lowest amount of jitter as possible.
Something like...
router eigrp
network
network
variance 5
no auto-summary
class-map voicestream
match ef
policy-map wan512
class voicestream
priority 200
class class-default
fair-queue
random-detect dscp-based
policy-map wan384
class voicestream
priority 153
class class-default
fair-queue
random-detect dscp-based
interface serial0/0
ip address
service-policy out wan512
max-reserved-bandwidth 90
interface serial0/1
ip address
service-policy out wan384
max-reserved-bandwidth 90
Ryan

Disable load balancing on dual PRIs - 3640 with MICA modems for dial out

We have a custom application that connects through reverse telnet to a Cisco 3640 that has 2 NM-24DM modules and 2 PRIs connected to it. Currently all outgoing calls are getting load balanced over the two PRIs. I need to change that so that all calls go over the first PRI and when all channels are used up, it starts using the second PRI. Seems like a simple enough thing to do but I can't figure out how to.
Here is my config
Current configuration : 1401 bytes
version 12.4
service timestamps debug uptime
service timestamps log uptime
service password-encryption
hostname DIALOUT01
boot-start-marker
boot-end-marker
enable secret 5 xxxxxxx
no aaa new-model
clock timezone EST -5
clock summer-time EDT recurring
no ip routing
no ip cef
no ip domain lookup
ip domain name xxxxxxx.xxx
isdn switch-type primary-ni
controller T1 0/0
framing esf
linecode b8zs
pri-group timeslots 1-24
description xxxx
controller T1 0/1
framing esf
linecode b8zs
pri-group timeslots 1-24
description xxxx
interface FastEthernet0/0
ip address dhcp hostname dialout01
no ip route-cache
no ip mroute-cache
duplex auto
speed auto
interface Serial0/0:23
no ip address
encapsulation hdlc
isdn switch-type primary-ni
no fair-queue
no cdp enable
interface Serial0/1:23
no ip address
encapsulation hdlc
isdn switch-type primary-ni
no fair-queue
no cdp enable
no ip http server
control-plane
line con 0
line 33 56
modem InOut
modem autoconfigure type mica
transport preferred telnet
transport input telnet
transport output telnet
line 65 88
modem InOut
modem autoconfigure type mica
transport preferred telnet
transport input telnet
transport output telnet
line aux 0
line vty 0 4
password 7 xxxxx login
end
Thanks,
Shahid

If I understand the question I think that isdn bchan-number-order is the command you are interested in. I think it detaults to round-robin, sounds like you want ascending (that is isdn bchan-number-order ascending). It is an interface subcommand.
See http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_3t/12_3t2/feature/guide/gt_ibcac.html#wp1055853
That may only apply to native ISDN calls and not MICA based calls, but see if that helps.

Load Balancing with BigIP / SSL question

I have an oddball question. We're load balancing ColdFusion
MX7 across 3 servers using a BigIP load balancing server. We
decided to go the hardware approach and it has been great except
for one small configuration issue.
We use a mix of SSL and non SSL pages, prior to the switch
from a single server to a load balanced setup I used to script that
would determine if a page that was supposed to be SSL had the
variable CGI.HTTPS turned on or off. If it was off, the page would
redirect back to itself with the SSL turned on.
The problem we have is that we followed BigIP's instruction
to secure the load balancing hardware instead of the three servers
running behind it. So what happens is that the traffic goes to the
load balancer port 441, but then the calls from the load balancer
to the individual servers is port 80. So even if a page is called
as HTTPS://... the coldfusion server says that CGI.HTTPS is "off"
since the traffic is port 80.
This isn't much of a problem, our SSL pages are linked as
HTTPS:// and the only problem would actually arise if someone was
to type in the URL and call it as HTTP rather than HTTPS.
My questions is this, does anyone know of a way that I can
detect if the page should be HTTPS and is not without changing our
configuration and putting SSL certificates on each individual
server?

Hey,
Well the load balancing with the BigIP device is really very
amazing. I think
what i liked most was swapping out servers when their lease
was up, through the
BigIP manager I just stopped all traffic to a server, shut it
down, plugged in
the new one and turned traffic back on. It was really very
easy.
The SSL stuff still gives me a headache to think about. but
I should mention I
no longer work where I was, plus now I'm all .net C# but
that's a different
story.
I think if I was going to do this all again I would not have
secured the bigIP
unit. It was nice to buy one SSL cert for all the servers I
attached rather
than one per server, but getting the SSL sites to work
properly was a headache.
We also use windows file replication where now I would go
with like a pair of
Dell MD1000's mirrored for storage and just have tons of ram
and cpu on the
front end units. Depends what you want to spend I guess. I
think the bigIP unit
we bought was like 20 grand, i think they are cheaper now
though.
Hope I helped.

Followup on return event from load balanced SO

Hi folks,
I had earlier posted a message about receiving a return event from an
asynchronous call to a Load Balanced Service Object.
It turns out that return events are handled specially and that the
sample provided will work just fine as is. In other words, the return event
is mapped to the load balanced copy that it was called on.
Thanks all of you who sent such interesting work arounds.
-John
John Jamison
Sage Solutions, Inc.
353 Sacramento Street, Suite 1360
San Francisco, CA 94111
415 392 7243 x 306
[email protected]

Hi folks,
I had earlier posted a message about receiving a return event from an
asynchronous call to a Load Balanced Service Object.
It turns out that return events are handled specially and that the
sample provided will work just fine as is. In other words, the return event
is mapped to the load balanced copy that it was called on.
Thanks all of you who sent such interesting work arounds.
-John
John Jamison
Sage Solutions, Inc.
353 Sacramento Street, Suite 1360
San Francisco, CA 94111
415 392 7243 x 306
[email protected]

Load share/ Redundant configuration question

I have a question regarding load balance/redundant configuration. The topology of the network are two redundant links (1 Gig each). One end of the links are two Nortel Passport switches; the other end of the links are two Cisco Catalyst 6509 switches.
Do anyone has any experience on how to implement a load balance or standby/active config on this cross-platform settings?
I just want to throw out two ways here if it would work.
1. Use GLBP or HRSP on the Cisco side; and use whatever protocols it supports on the Nortel side. Would this work?
2. Implement universal routing protocols such as OSPF on the two links; does OSPF automatically sort of load balance these two links; if one link down, would other link pick up all the traffic?
Thanks.

Hi there,
The weapon of choice here is VRRP. VRRP is very similar to HSRP, but is an open standard - HSRP is Cisco's own. The command set is nearly identical to HSRP, if you go to an interface and type "vrrp ?" you'll see some very familiar commands.
Not too sure what your passports are, but I know that the 8600's run VRRP, so I guess they all should.
As for the routing, OSPF would find both ways to get through the network and then either traverse one link or load-balance over them, depending on what you tell it to do.
If you have 2 Nortel boxes and then 2 Cisco boxes with networks behind the two, then I would run OSPF every time.
Hope that helps - if it does, let me know.
LH

HSRP load-balancing ?

Hi,
I understand that when configuring HSRP for load-balancing we use two HSRP groups and subsequently have two different HSRP IP addresses for each of the groups. Therefore, from a PC's perspective there are two different gateway addresses to be configured.
My question is: Can a DHCP server be configured to supply 2 different gateway addresses to the PC's ?
If the PC's are allowed to receive two different gateway IP addresses what underlying method does the PC use to change from one gateway to the other ?
Cheers,
Phil.

I don't know if you looked at the CCO link I had on my previous post.
Anyway, that example has 2 routers configured with 2 HSRP groups. R1 is the active router for 1 group with a standby IP of 171.16.6.100 and R2 is the active router for the 2nd group with a standby IP of 171.16.6.200. Half the hosts on the LAN will use 171.16.6.100 as their default gateway and the other half will use 171.16.6.200 as their gateway. Should one of the switches become unreachable the standby router should take over and route all the traffic.
This solution provides load balancing + redundancy for your LAN.
HTH,
Sundar

Cluster without load balancer?

Can two FMS interactive servers work this way:
1. they both serve the same VOD flv file existing on both
machines
2. whe one server gets X users connected, next user (X+1) is
routed to the next server
3. there is no hardware for the load balancer
Is this possible and if it is, how?

Yes.... it's possible, but there's nothing built-in to FMS to
handle it. You need to write your own application to do it.
I like to handle this by building a little app that polls the
admin service of each involved server once a second or so, and
retrieves stats about the application instances i need to keep
track of (we'll call it the "load balancer app" . In this
application, I include functions to loop through the stats data for
each server, and determine which is the most logical to send the
next client to.
On the client side, I first connect to the load balancer app,
providing an identifier for the application I want to connect to as
an argument in the connect() call. The load balancer makes the best
server determination, and returns the host name of the target
server. The client then disconnects from the load balancer, and
connects to the target host.

Guest N+1 redundancy & load balancing in seperate data centers

I need assistance in aquiring documentation to setup N+1 redundancy & load balancing between two seperate guest anchor controllers installed in seperate data centers. Can you explaing how it should be setup or point me in the right direction for documentation? If you can't point me in the right direction to aquire documentation; can you answer the following questions?
1) How do I setup my mobility groups on my guest anchor controllers installed in the DMZ? Should both guest anchor's be in the same mobility group.
2) Do both guest anchors share the same virtual IP or do they need to be seperate (DMZ01 - 1.1.1.1 / DMZ02 - 2.2.2.2)? I think seperate!
3) Are there any configuration parameters on the guest anchors for load balancing?
4) Do either on of the guest anchors need to be setup as a master controller? I'm not sure?
5) Are there any configuration parameters on the foreign controllers for load balancing?
6) How do I setup my foreign controllers? Should both guest controllers be added to the mobility group on the foreigh controller? I would think both of them would be added to the foreign controller mobility group.
7) Should both guest anchors be added as an anchor on the WLAN? I would think both controllers would need to be added as anchors under the WLAN!
8) Am I missing anything here? This is how I think it should logically work?
Thanks,
Gordon

I need to elaborate on my questions:
1) Do both of my guest DMZ anchors need to be in a seperate mobility group on their own or can the guest anchors be in completely seperate mobility groups? All 100 + foreign controllers are in seperate mobility groups.
I) Example #1: Guest anchor number 1 (Mobility group: DMZ) / Guest anchor number 2 (Mobility group: DMZ)
II) Example #2: Guest anchor number 1 (Mobility group: DMZ01) / Guest anchor number 2 (Mobility group: DMZ02)
2) Do both guest anchor controllers have to be configured with seperate virtual IP's or do they share the same address?
I) Follow up to this question: I want to register the DMZ controllers with our DNS servers so that my clients receive a name when authenticating through my customized webauth. I am currently using 1.1.1.1 as the virtual address and I'm pretty sure this is the address I need to register with my external DNS server. My question is this. Does the address I use for the virtual interface matter? 1.1.1.1 is not a valid address with my network. Do I need to assign a valid address registered with my network if I'm going to add this address to my external DNS servers?
3) No change to my original question.
4) No change to my original question.
5) No change to my original question. I have run into Cisco documentation that mentions guest anchor load balancing, but the documentation is very vague. I'd love to be able to load balance as the network group wants to limit my guest traffic to the internet. I could double my pipe if I could load balance the guest anchors.
6) No change to my original question, but the answer to question one is key to the setup of my foreign controllers.
7) Elaboration: Should both guest controllers be added as an anchor under the WLAN on the foreign controllers? I would think both of them would be added.
8) No change:
9) Should my secondary guest controller be added as an anchor on the WLAN of the primary guest DMZ controller and visa versa?
Can my Cisco expert answer this or do I need to open a TAC case?
Thanks,
Gordon Shelhon
SR. Wireless Services Engineer
Company: Not specified

UCCE Call flow to load balance & redundancy

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for