cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Announcements

Community Helping Community

1408
Views
5
Helpful
10
Replies
Highlighted
Beginner

CUCMBE 6000 Clustering over WAN

Hi Guys,

Appreciate if someone can help!!

Can we cluster two BE 6000 nodes running CUCM, Presence & Unity Connection across two sites over WAN for enhanced resilience. The SRND suggests, only CUCM may be clustered over WAN, remaining co-residing apps may not be clustered over WAN. A second UCS C200 server should be co-located with the primary UCS C200 server to provide redundancy for these remaining co-resident applications.

Thanks in advance.

JS

Everyone's tags (2)
10 REPLIES 10
Hall of Fame Cisco Employee

CUCMBE 6000 Clustering over WAN

As you've already read, only CUCM can be clustered over the WAN, if you want to cluster CUC, CUPS and UCCX over the WAN then you need the "regular" versions of each product and not a CUCMBE 6000 solution.

Cisco Unified CMBE 6000 may be deployed using the  clustering-over-the-WAN call processing local failover model. In this  type of deployment, two Unified CMBE 6000 server nodes are deployed at  each of two sites to provide geographic redundancy for the Unified CM  call processing application. The two Unified CMBE 6000 server nodes may  both be UCS C200 Rack-Mount Servers, or alternatively one of the servers  may be a regular Cisco Media Convergence Server (MCS).

Only the Unified CM call processing application may be clustered over  the WAN. The remaining Unified CMBE co-resident applications (Cisco  Unity Connection, Cisco Unified Presence, and Cisco Unified Contact  Center Express) may not be clustered over the WAN. However, a second  UCS C200 server should be co-located with the primary UCS C200 server to  provide redundancy for these remaining co-resident applications.

HTH

java

If this helps, please rate

www.cisco.com/go/pdihelpdesk

HTH

java

if this helps, please rate
Beginner

CUCMBE 6000 Clustering over WAN

Thanks Java!!

If this is true, tbh, not very impressed with BE6000, looks to me a big functionality gap in the product at this juncture for SMB's looking true business continuity from lower capex solution. No doubt, product ticks 'cost-effective & feature rich' box of any customer requirements, but I believe still lags of most critical requirement around 'resilience'. It would have been nicer if Cisco has kept the consistency by bringing similar HA features as of  'regular' CUXn & UCCX!

I will wait for a while for others comment to see if someone else has anything to add!! Or otherwise, I may have to revise the design using C200 (or may be C210) with 'regular' products, with a hope C200 running full CUCM, CUXn & CUP can be clustered across WAN to offer true business continuity. Do you have any comments on the revised design??

Ta, JS

Beginner

Hi Java,

Hi Java,

Have you a document about this restriction of the cluster over the wan for the BE6K ?

Best regards,

Matthieu

Hall of Fame Cisco Employee

Actually right now this has

Actually right now this has changed, you have no problem clustering over the WAN and following the regular CoW guidelines. However, the number of users/devices you can add to a 6K, does not change because of this.

HTH

java

if this helps, please rate
Beginner

Thanks for your fast answer,

Thanks for your fast answer,

Ok for the cluster over the Wan, and for the cluster on ONE BE6K ? I don't find the text about this configuration... 

Hall of Fame Cisco Employee

The SRND covers CoW

The SRND covers CoW requirements. There is no difference in the config.

HTH

java

if this helps, please rate
Beginner

Ok and two CUCM node on the

Ok and two CUCM node on the same BE6K ? 

Hall of Fame Cisco Employee

Assuming you don't mind

Assuming you don't mind having a single point of failure for HW, and you are within the number of apps/resources the server supports, yes.

HTH

java

if this helps, please rate
Beginner

Thanks for your answer,

Thanks for your answer,

Assuming we have 2000 devices, we can put 1000 devices on each node of the same BE6K server?

I am in trouble with the limitation of the 1000 users

Hall of Fame Cisco Employee

Then you should be looking at

Then you should be looking at a 7K or regular UC on UCS, the 6K does not fit every scenario, and if there are chances of growth, those should be accounted for since the beginning.

HTH

java

if this helps, please rate
CreatePlease to create content
Content for Community-Ad
FusionCharts will render here