| Voll, Scott 2006-04-17, 11:58 pm |
| I would have to agree with Erick. A Subscriber at each remote location
might be a good option if you want to keep your 28xx routers. You would
have full services in case of a WAN outage. And what are the odds of
both the WAN being down at the same time a Subscriber is down. (quick,
find some wood to knock on ;-)
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Netfortius
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 5:03 AM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SRST (in 2821 and 3825) vs. CMM vs. AWG
andsomesurvivability design Qs
On Wednesday 12 April 2006 20:16, Erick Bergquist wrote:
> You could have multiple routers for SRST-use if you have that many
phones
> to go over the limit on one router, and in CCM divide the phones at
the
> site into different device pools each with a different SRST reference.
Then
> have dial-peers on those back to the main-voice/SRST router at site
with
> PSTN connectivity.
This is what I was thinking of doing, with the dual router provisioning.
>
> But this all depends on the type of failure that occurs, how it
impacts
> network, site, etc. How about if a site loses power and only some
> components are on UPS/gen power and not the whole network IPT-wise?
>
> If you have a bigger remote site with a large number of phones, or it
is
> important for them to have full phone services, etc in a total link
failure
> to HQ maybe you want to look at putting a subscriber locally perhaps,
etc.
>
> Currently with the old PBX, how do the phones work if you lose total
> connectivity for old PBX system back to HQ? Do you have a local PBX on
site
> for the phones that is linked to PBX in HQ? (same concept as local
> subscriber).
I have one PBX/ea. remote, connected over channels on a T1 to the PBX in
the
HQ, and also provided with a 6-10 POTS lines, for when the T1 fails.
All in all - one of my questions related to the difference between the
various
solutions I was contemplating, as I have no experience with any - see
$subj.
I already know the 2821s are not enough for what I need, and I do not
want to
take the chance to leave phones purposely not covered (even though some
types
of failures could - in fact - impact groups of them - under the
group-splitting per multiple SRTSs on multiple routers example).
Thanks again to all who replied,
Stefan
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
|