Voip and Pots Redundancy dial peer

[Lisandro Quinteros]

Hi, I have two providers one with sip trunk and one with e1s..

I also have 2 gws .. for redundancy I have 2 e1s on each gw and the sip trunk that is not active yet would be provided in 2 cables so I could plug 1 on each router for redundancy...

Now I have some problem.. As far as I know if I want to load balance between pots and voip dial peer If same priority is applied it will always choose the pots dial peer...

How could I make this load balance to work without adding any digit on cucm??

Thanks

Lisandro

[Terry Cheema · Accepted solution]

Use Route Groups to achieve this, assign the SIP Trunk and H323 gw to the same RG. Choose the circular algorithm for delivering the calls to gateway.

Now under the RG for SIP prefix a digit, create a the SIP dial-peer to match this digit. Create a voice translation rule and apply to the outgoing SIP dialpeer to strip this extra digit.

You can also use Voice gateway translation rule on the incoming voip dialpeer to add the digit but above will me more simple.

-Terry

Please rate all helpful posts.

[Lisandro Quinteros]

Well I forget to tell that we have a trunk sip between GW and CUCM.. and I know that I could make this with RG thats why I said trying not to add any digit on CUCM... I was wondering If there is any way of achieve this only modifying GW config...

Thanks anyway for the help..

[Vivek Batra]

Hi Lisandro,

Apart from nice piece of information by Terry Cheema, please check 'dial-peer hunt' command in gateway to load balance between dial peers if it serves your requirement.

Thanks

Vivek

[Lisandro Quinteros]

Well I have also checked the dial-peer hunt command the problem is that in doc only said longest match.. priority..default.. and does not says nothing about pots preference against voip dial peers..

Thanks

[Vivek Batra · Accepted solution]

Hi Lisandro,

As you said before, I could found following;

"You cannot use the same preference numbers for POTS and voice-network dial peers within a hunt group.
You can set a separate preference order for each dial peer type, but the preference order does not work on both at the same time. For example, you can configure preference order 0, 1, and 2 for POTS dial peers, and you can configure preference order 0, 1, and 2 for the voice-network dial peers, but the two preference orders are separate. The system resolves preference orders among POTS dial peers first."

This means that priority is always given to PoTS dial peer and if it goes down or exceeds maximum calls, then only call will be given to VoIP dial peer.

Seems only option is to add prefix in call manager to identify b/w PoTS and VoIP dial peer so that gateway can have load balance between two separate groups of dial peers.

Thanks

Vivek

[Lisandro Quinteros]

Thanks both for your replies as I thought there is no other alternative.. the other thing is that there are 2 gw that need to balance too..

So I think I would change the parameter to modify RL behavior.. 

And on the RL will add 2 route groups.... so modifying the parameter will balance between both RG... on the detail of one of the RG would add a prefix lets say *9 .. and inside each RG would be the sip trunks for both GWs with circular so would balance between gws too..

Correct?

[Vivek Batra]

Just note that call manager accesses the route groups in the order in which they appear in the route list however within a route group, you have choice of selecting algorithm to select the gateways to actually load balance between them. 

[Lisandro Quinteros]

Sorry I thought there was a service parameter to modify behaviour within route list but I thing I am wrong...

Thanks

Lisandro

[Terry Cheema]

Why dont you want to use digit manipulation in CUCM? Its pretty much the only solid option possible. If you do digit manipulation at RG level it will not be visible to the end users its just for the load balancing of the calls.

-Terry