Cisco Support Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Community Member

AgentPG and remote CM

HI,

Following is the architecture.
SideA:
CM Pub/Sub1.
CVPA
Rogger A
Agent/VRU PGA

SideB:
CVPB
Rogger B
Agent/VRU PGB

Thers no CM sub at sideB. As per SRND, Agent/VRU PGB cannot have remote CM to connect and requires a local CM node at SideB. Question is, if customer accepts the risk of not having CM redundancy and if hes ok that AgentP/VRU PGB contacts remote CM over WAN during failover, can we go ahead and propose the architecure i.e, Agent/VRU PGB exists at SideB without local CM node.

Only 25 agents are there for the whole solution as per customer and the call volume is much less.

Can I get the pros and cons of not having CM along with Agent PG at SideB. Is there any alternate for this design.

Any documentation or writeup explaining why AgentPG requires local CM node at the same location.

What is the impact if AgentPG does not have local CM node and contacts remote CM?


Thanks in advance

13 REPLIES
Green

Re: AgentPG and remote CM

Your design will not pass A2Q. Even if you had a subscriber at side B, the failover would be to side A which is a combined pub/sub, and the SRND says:

Do not use a publisher as a failover or backup call processing server unless you have fewer than 150 agent phones and the installation is not mission critical or is not a production environment.

If you had a sub at side B and pub/sub at side A, you would be in violation of this statement in the SRND.

You would probably be able to convince the A2Q team that 25 agents would be OK on a pub/sub (side A) and sub (side B). But you will not be able to convince the A2Q team that a single pub/sub, with no ability to continue should this box go down, is a suitable architecture. The single pub/sub is only allowed in a test environment.

Add another machine at side B.

Regards,

Geoff

Community Member

Re: AgentPG and remote CM

Geoff,

I meant CM publiser and Subscriber are two separate servers at Side A location. if agents are less than 150 can we go ahead withouht CCM at Side B and only Agent PG.

Green

Re: AgentPG and remote CM

I see.

Well, the SRND does say it's not allowed in a production environment. I strongly recommend another machine - and so will Cisco. But you might be able to swing it by the A2Q team.

If the PG fails over to side B, and JTAPI is connected to the CTI Manager on the subscriber at side A, how is this link? How far away are sides A and B?

Regards,

Geoff

Community Member

Re: AgentPG and remote CM

Side A is Tiburon, Side B is Virginia. Private recommended for 2mbps. Is there any recommendation for public link for 25 agents and less call volume.

Re: AgentPG and remote CM

The SRND has a couple of formulas you need to use... actually you might need to look at the UCM SRND too.  Things like BHCA, CTI data, etc will need to be taken into account.  You might want to consider using a cisco partner or at least someone who has deployed UCCE before at least to assist with the preliminary design.

david

Green

Re: AgentPG and remote CM

Tiburon, CA - near San Francisco?

Regards,

Geoff

Community Member

Re: AgentPG and remote CM

Tiburon - Florida

Re: AgentPG and remote CM

One more thing, have you considered going Express?  Express seems to be a more appropriate (and cheaper) solution considering what you've described so far.

david

Community Member

Re: AgentPG and remote CM

I am thinking of the following....

PGA(CM+VRU), CM Pub and Sub, CVPA at Florida
PGB(CM+VRU), CVPB at Virginia (no CM)

Since as per the design CM is reqd at Virginia along with AgentPG and customer does not provide one, following is the question:
1.Will it be appropriate if we move PGB to Flordia, if so can VRUPG of PGB talk to CVPB at Virginia over WAN, is it an acceptable design.
(or)
2. If we remove agentpg alone from PGB leaving with only VRUPG in PGB, will it suffice? if so, can I install AgentPGB along with CVPA server at Florida?

Thanks in advance..

Green

Re: AgentPG and remote CM

I don't like this design - you know that.

Confusion over your naming convention. Using PGA, PGB is fine - but better to say CVP1, CVP2.

If you split the PG so that the A side is in Virginia and the B side is in Florida (private link and public link must be diverse - lots of latency requirements here) and you have CVP1 in Virginia and CVP2 in Florida:

PGA (Virginia) - the A side PG has three PIMs - one to Call Manager over JTAPI, one to CVP1 (local) and one to CVP2. So the connection to CVP2 is already over the WAN. That's not good, but at least the JTAPI is local.

Assume PGA is off.

PGB (Tiborun) - the B side PG has three PIMs - one to Call Manager, the CTI Manager in Virginia over JTAPI over the WAN, CVP1 over the WAN, CVP2 local. This is even worse. I don't think this will pass.

You would be far better with everything in Virginia than a split like you are proposing.

Where are the trunks coming in - at both sites? How many gateways? Why not just treat Tiboran as a branch.

What problem are you trying to solve? Is the Virginia data center in danger?

This is not a mission critical contact center - if it were, you would have a proper CUCM cluster design. Don't make it so complicated at this stage.

Regards,

Geoff

Community Member

Re: AgentPG and remote CM

First, the locations you mentioned are in reverse order i.e, PGA at Florida and PGB at Virgina.

"PGA (Virginia) - the A side PG has three PIMs - one to Call Manager over JTAPI, one to CVP1 (local) and one to CVP2. So the connection to CVP2 is already over the WAN. That's not good, but at least the JTAPI is local."

Connection to CVP2 has to be over WAN, how else you would talk to CVP2 from Florida?

"PGB (Tiborun) - the B side PG has three PIMs - one to Call Manager, the CTI Manager in Virginia over JTAPI over the WAN, CVP1 over the WAN, CVP2 local. This is even worse. I don't think this will pass."

Yes. CVP1 over the WAN from VRU PIM.

Reason is, If CVP 1 is down at Florida and PGB is down at Virginia. I would use CVP PIM2 of PGA to connect to CVP2 over WAN, I think this is the only way to have redundancy for CVP servers. Let me know if theres any other method.

Now that theres no CM at Virginia I am thinking of if I can move the whole PGB to Florida so that Florida will have 2 Agent PGs,2 VRU PG, CVP1 and Virginia would have only CVP2.

(or)

remove only AgentPG alone from PGB and install in a server at Florida so that Florida will have 2 Agent PGs, 1 VRU PG, CVP1 and Virginia would have VRUPG, CVP2. Latency/bandwidth is fine with customer assuming we enough/more bandwidth.

Can I install AgentPG along with CVP server in the same box ?

Re: AgentPG and remote CM

Did you see Geoff's post?  Where are your ingress gateways, how many?  I don't see how you will be able to meet A2Q, regardless of configuration... the problem is not where the servers are, but the servers you're missing.

david

Green

Re: AgentPG and remote CM

I assumed your main place was Virginia, since I thought that's where the Call Manager was; my mistake.

It doesn't matter - these are just names. Let's try again:

PGA (Florida) - where your CUCM is. CVP1 is here. The A side PG has three PIMs - one to Call Manager over JTAPI, one to CVP1 (local) and one to CVP2 (remote). So the connection to CVP2 is over the WAN. That's not good, but at least the JTAPI is local.

PGB (Virginia) - no sub here. CVP2 is here. The B side PG has three PIMs - one to Call Manager, the CTI Manager in Florida over JTAPI over the WAN, CVP1 over the WAN, CVP2 local.

Let's assume you lose the whole of Virginia. You can't send any calls to CVP2, but otherwise you are OK.

Let's assume you lose the whole of Florida - there are no phones now, you are in survivability.

Now that theres no CM at Virginia I am thinking of if I can move the whole PGB to Florida so that Florida will have 2 Agent PGs,2 VRU PG, CVP1 and Virginia would have only CVP2.

Yes, there is no CUCM in Virginia - so why have anything there? You don't gain anything.

Can I install AgentPG along with CVP server in the same box ?

Nope.

What makes your design asymmetric is the absence of a second subscriber. This forces an asymmetric design, so go that way. Put everything in Florda, and make Virginia a pure CVP branch office - phones, voice gateway, survivability. That's it.

I assume there are trunks coming in to Virginia, but you need to help here.

Regards,

Geoff

373
Views
0
Helpful
13
Replies
CreatePlease to create content