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

Welcome to Cisco Support Community. We would love to have your feedback.

For an introduction to the new site, click here. If you'd prefer to explore, try our test area to get started. And see here for current known issues.

New Member

Alternate Gatekeepers

Hi,

We are in process of implementing the Alternate gatekeepers across our customer network. We are not been able to find any good doc which says the pros and cons on the implemtaion of it.

Actually we are not looking for the configuration part, we are looking at the information like, how 2nd will come up if first goes down, and will second be registered to first GK?

Basically all the positive and negative impacts of alternative gatekeepers.

Any help would be really appreciated.

1 REPLY
Bronze

Re: Alternate Gatekeepers

Basically this is similar to CCM group. If one box goes down the next box in line takes over. There is nothing really much to it.

Benefits: Redundancy and Load Balancing

Drawbacks: Can't think of any but depending on IOS versions there are some restrictions. This is for 12.3.

The gatekeeper-to-gatekeeper redundancy and load-sharing mechanism has the following restrictions and limitations:

•The gatekeeper-to-gatekeeper redundancy and load-sharing mechanism requires the Cisco H.323 VoIP Gatekeeper for Cisco Access Platforms feature.

•The order in which LRQs are sent to the gatekeepers is based on the order in which the gatekeepers are listed. You cannot specify a priority number for a gatekeeper.

•Regardless of the order in which the LRQs are sent, the gateway still uses the first gatekeeper that sends an LCF.

•The settings for delay between LRQs and the LRQ window are global and cannot be set on a per-zone or technology-prefix basis.

•The number of remote gatekeepers multiplied by the delay per LRQ cannot exceed the Routing Information Protocol (RIP) timeout. Therefore, we recommend that you limit your list of remote gatekeepers to two or three.

•If LRQ forwarding is enabled on the directory gatekeeper, the sequential setting for LRQs is ignored.

•Only E.164 address resolution is supported.

•Using redundant H.323 zone support in the "directory gatekeeper" can generate extra RAS messages. Therefore, the number of "directory gatekeeper" levels should be kept to a minimum (two or three at the maximum).

Full document can be found here http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios123/123cgcr/vvfax_c/callc_c/h323_c/323confg/4gkconf.htm#wp1093346

130
Views
0
Helpful
1
Replies