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

CVP Redundant Architecture with ICM

Guys,

I have a design question I want to clarify. Lets say I have 2 Call Server/VXML Server. And I have 2 total PG boxes. 1 Call Server and 1 PG on each side of the WAN. The PG boxes should be a side A and side B. They will support both CM Agent PG and TYPE 10 VRU's. Am I correct that Each PG box should have 2 PG instances? 1 PGrunning a single PIM for Call Manager / Soft ACD. and another PG instance having 2 PIM's. 1 PIM pointing to each CVP Call Server. Just want to make sure things are straight in my head! Also I want to verify that with the side A and side B PG's, only 1 PG is active at any one time. So one Call Server will always be being services over the WAN by the PG.

17 REPLIES
Hall of Fame Super Silver

Re: CVP Redundant Architecture with ICM

You are correct in all aspects. One things to note is that Cisco recently re-certiied splitting VRUs from PGs accross WAN, the only thing you need to ensure is that you have sufficient bandwidth for this.

From IPCC SRND:

Unified IP IVR or Unified CVP PG to Unified IP IVR or Unified CVP

At this time, no tool exists that specifically addresses communication between the Unified IP IVR or Unified CVP PG and the Unified IP IVR or Unified CVP. However, the tool mentioned in the previous section produces a fairly accurate measurement of bandwidth needed for this communication. Bandwidth consumed between the Unified ICM Central Controller and Unified IP IVR or Unified CVP PG is very similar to the bandwidth consumed between the Unified IP IVR or Unified CVP PG and the Unified IP IVR or Unified CVP.

The VRU Peripheral Gateway to ICM Central Controller Bandwidth Calculator tool is available (with proper login authentication) through the Cisco Steps to Success Portal at

http://tools.cisco.com/s2slv2/viewProcessFlow.do?method=browseStepsPage&modulename=browse&stepKeyId=55|EXT-AS-107287|EXT-AS-107288|EXT-AS-107301&isPreview=null&prevTechID=null&techName=IP%20Communications

If the Unified IP IVR or Unified CVP PGs are split across the WAN, total bandwidth required would be double what the tool reports: once for Unified ICM Central Controller to Unified IP IVR or Unified CVP PG and once for Unified IP IVR or Unified CVP PG to Unified IP IVR or Unified CVP.

HTH, please rate all helpful posts!

Chris

Re: CVP Redundant Architecture with ICM

Chris,

Is this bandwidth necessary over the visible or over the private link?

Chad

Hall of Fame Super Silver

Re: CVP Redundant Architecture with ICM

Public network (visible).

Chris

Re: CVP Redundant Architecture with ICM

oh no problem! Thanks for all the help!

Chad

Re: CVP Redundant Architecture with ICM

This brought up another good question. So each network VRU has a label. This label points to a particular routing client. Now this is a type 10 VRU so in my script I do a SendtoVRU node to get it to the VXML Gateway. I have a VXML Gateway on each side of the WAN. How do I achieve redundancy in my scripts to reach both VXML Gateways? I came up with using the same incoming called-number on the VXML Gateways, and using DNS coming from the SIP Proxies into the VXML Gateways. Is this supported, am I thinking about this the right way? Also it seems in this sense that I will never be able to always use the correct local VXML Gateway if its up. Am I missing something?

Chad

Green

Re: CVP Redundant Architecture with ICM

The NVRU label (on each routing client) returned by the "Send To VRU" node (something like 8111111111) should be configured on each of the Call Servers (allowing for the correlation ID tacked on the end) through OAMP under the "Send to Originator".

That ensures that the VRU leg (and hence the VXML app) runs on the ingress gateway. A typical "branch office" deployment.

This does not go through your DNS (for SRV) or the Proxies.

Regards,

Geoff

Re: CVP Redundant Architecture with ICM

Geoff,

I understand that and I have that working. My question is what if VXML Gateway on Side A dies completely. How does ICM know to send it to the VXML Gateway on Side B?

Chad

Green

Re: CVP Redundant Architecture with ICM

Chad, are your VXML gateways separate from your ingress gateways?

Regards,

Geoff

Re: CVP Redundant Architecture with ICM

Geoff,

Indeed they are. I have 2 3845 Ingress gateways, and 2 5350 VXML Gateways.

Chad

Re: CVP Redundant Architecture with ICM

This actually leads to my next questions. So I have a CVP Call Server on each side of the WAN. How do I achieve redundacy here from SIP proxy into the call servers? Also, these are going to be different routing clients in ICM, so the incoming scripts must all have to be mirror's and labels etc to function with both routing clients? Just want to make sure I'm not missings something simple..

Thanks,

Chad

New Member

Re: CVP Redundant Architecture with ICM

Exactly, if two CVP in redundancy, you have to duplicate labels against both CVP's.

Wei

New Member

Re: CVP Redundant Architecture with ICM

ICM doesn't know VXML GW, it is GK that can point side B VGW if side B dies.

Wei

New Member

Re: CVP Redundant Architecture with ICM

One PG instance is enough, you could define it as 'generic PG', so it supports two types of PIM's (CCM and VRU), so this pair of PG's have 3 PIM's (ccm, cvp1, cvp2).

It doesn't harm if using two PG instance.

Wei

Re: CVP Redundant Architecture with ICM

Hmm in this case should I load balance out of my sip proxies to the CVP VXML Gateways regardles of where it is in the WAN? Its not possible to achieve perfect call routing from ICM because its always going to try the first label on SendTOVRU which will go into the proxy, and the best you can do at that point is load balance randomely! If there was a way to choose the order that a sendtovru node tried its labels, then it would be achievable. Maybe there is?

Thanks much!

Chad

Green

Re: CVP Redundant Architecture with ICM

The "SendToVRU" picks up the label it needs depending on the routing client. As you say, you have identical labels configured on each. This is the label returned to the VRU client - the CallServer.

You can't use "SendToOriginator" because your ingress gateway is not the VXML gateway, so it needs to be configured in the proxy server. It will do the load balancing across the VXML gateways.

If you configure priorities on the static routes in the SIP Proxy you could target one VXML gateway in preference to the other, only using the "backup" VXML gateway if the invite to the primary fails.

Regards,

Geoff

Re: CVP Redundant Architecture with ICM

Geoff,

Yeah thats what I thought, I was trying to figure out a cool way to trick it into actually always using the VXML Browser local to the routing client that sent it in First, and the other VXML Browser second. But I think what I am hearing is the best I can get is load balancing, which is sufficient :)

Thanks for all the answers, good thread ;)

Chad

Re: CVP Redundant Architecture with ICM

Geoff,

Yeah thats what I thought, I was trying to figure out a cool way to trick it into actually always using the VXML Browser local to the routing client that sent it in First, and the other VXML Browser second. But I think what I am hearing is the best I can get is load balancing, which is sufficient :)

Thanks for all the answers, good thread ;)

Chad

511
Views
8
Helpful
17
Replies
CreatePlease to create content