As with most things, I think you're safe doing what makes the most sense
for your given set of requirements.
The design guide does mention a few key points on the topic.
Thank you guys for all your feedback! This exactly what we were looking for
with this move.Based on the responses, we'll need to do the HA WAN and new
hostname. Current config has the device pool as UCCX_ABC, so the agents
would eventually fail-over to CUCM Sub C in DC2. CUCM Sub A and B, as well
Michael,
We are very large University and we wanted geographical separation of our data
centres.
We have moved our UCCX HA servers to two different data centres with VM ware
and UCCS, 22 km (13.7 miles) away over two fibre lines.
We route the VLAN and have no issues as both see each other as a
Yea, I think the process would work fine with new hostname. I'm wondering
if deleting a sub and re-adding/rebuilding with same hostname as WAN causes
some issues which needed that cleanup script.
On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 11:06 AM Anthony Holloway <
avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You
You can't convert the model from LAN to WAN, per se. You basically just
destroy your HA by deleting the Sub from the Pub GUI. Then delete your Sub
VM. Then, you rebuild the whole Sub integration from scratch, as if it was
new.
On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 9:55 AM Brian Meade wrote:
> HA over WAN
You shouldn't need TAC to perform the cleanup of the Sub, but it's my
understanding that they already know that the action of deleting the server
is not 100% clean, so they have a command (a script) to run as root to
clean up some left behind entries. I'd just as soon have them do this, as
it
HA over WAN allows each server to have different configurations for the
Unified CM connection as well as your call control groups. So you could
have the subscriber connect to a local CUCM subscriber and have different
device pools for those CTI groups to use that local subscriber as well.
I've
