AnsweredAssumed Answered

BE6KS as remote-site redundancy?

Question asked by BenjaminAmick on May 16, 2016
Latest reply on May 16, 2016 by BenjaminAmick

I know this question is outside of the reccomended-path for standard integration of the BE6K environment, but I was wondering if this would be a feasible path.

 

Obviously, for a primary installation, we prefer to have a redundant pair of BE6KH/M at the customer's headquarters, but when we deal with a new installation in a geographically divergent area we prefer to have local call processing for failover purposes over just SRST. I think a BE6KM is a bit overkill for this need, as we have no purpose for an additional unity server, with the 2 per cluster limit, so we are left with just CM and IM&P (if desired) on the BE6KM leaving it highly underutilized unless we have other application (Like UCCX) that we would want to move cross-site.

 

Therefore, I was wondering if it would be feasible or even reasonable to spec the BE6KS for these remote facilities, as it would be able to handle the core application without much overhead. The only issue I see with this is that Cisco advertises the BE6KS as no-redundancy and a limit of 150 users, and I do not know if this would be a limitation if we were just adding it as a member server in the cluster, as I have not worked with the BE6KS hardware before.

 

Could anyone shed some light for me? Thank you.

Outcomes