UM between W2k domains across a WAN.

[d1nnsear]

Unity 4.x with X2k.

Domain 1: 1 x Unity Svr and 1 off-box X2k server (with AD installed on X2k box).

Domain 2: X2k servers

The domains are at different locations connected via a WAN.

If the Message Store Wizard is configured to point to the off-box Exchange server in Domain 1 is it possible to have all of our Unified Messaging users homed on the X2k svr across the WAN on Domain 2? No user mailboxes (other than the ones installed by default) would be configured on the X2k server in domain 1.

Would this scenario impact MWI & message delivery? My understanding is that the MWI could be lit before the message store (& thus users inbox) has a message in it. The off-box X2k box in Dom1 will 'pass-through' all messages to the X2k box in Dom2.

I'm only considering such a scenario in order to have UM users in domain 1 without having to move 100s of users from the X2k servers in domain 2 to domain 1. We could then just use the X2k box in Dom1 for VM only users, but I'm mainly trying to avoid migrating loads of mailboxes across the WAN to a different site.

Thanks in advance,

NJ.

[lindborg]

Why don't you just install Unity into Domain 2 and create VM only users as hidden from the address book and leave it at that? Going across a WAN like that can be bad news depending on what type of bandwidth you have including MWI/Notification delays/problems, delays when you log in to get your messages, pauses playing messages back etc... Generally not a desirable design if you can avoid it.

[d1nnsear]

That makes sense & I realise we'll have issues over the WAN. The problem I have is mainly political in that the headoffice site in Domain 2 would like to retain control of ALL Exchange servers and are not having any convincing of the essential need to install an Exchange svr in Domain 1, let alone the possibility of having to move mailboxes from Domain 2 to Domain 1 to provide Unified Messaging functionality.

I realise the design is highly undesirable, but would it be supported by TAC/Cisco? If it's not supported that's all the ammo I need (along with the reference to the relevant Unity doc which I can't seem to find).

Ta.

[kechambe]

As of Unity 4.0(3) this is not a supported configuration. Unity will crash and burn hard -- and there is nothing that you can do to correct it.

Please see these:

http://www.cisco.com/cgi-bin/bugtool/onebug.pl?bugid=CSCea68581

http://www.cisco.com/cgi-bin/bugtool/onebug.pl?bugid=CSCdy70554

Thanks,

Keith

[d1nnsear]

Cheers Keith, that's just what I'm after.

I'll also reference the 'Requirements for Unity Unified Messaging' in the System Requirements doc ( http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/voicesw/ps2237/prod_pre_installation_guide09186a0080117617.html#31277 ). The recommended minimum network connection mentioned = 100Mbps.

They'll have to bite the bullet & move any UM users mailboxes to the new Exchange servers in Domain/Site 1.

[kechambe]

There are the 4.0(3) release notes:

http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/voice/c_unity/unity40/relnote/cu403rn.htm#383616

'Any type of WAN link is explicitly not supported.'

[d1nnsear]

Cheers again Keith.

In what scenario would one use the Internet Voice Connector and Routing Group Message Passing & Directory Replication then? Maybe I'm missing something (again!), but I thought this would've facilitated WAN support?

In the (UK version) of the Unity Engineer (UCSE v1.1) training guide page 4-19 there's a very high level scenario of sending messages between routing groups in Ex2k between Seattle & Los Angeles (connected via a WAN?). The example uses bridgehead servers & the routing group connector.

In what instances can Unity pass messages in this type of scenario?