Option 128 missing

[Article80]

Hi All

I am trying to reconfigure 2 3300icp running MCD 4.0 and MCD 4.2 That are currently setup in a cluster.
I need to connect all phones to one controller and the other will be a redundant system.
NB1 has an
ip address of 10.122.122.30
subnet mask 255.255.255.0
gateway 10.122.122.254
Dhcp enabled

NB2 10.122.222.30
subnet 255.255.255.0
gateway 10.122.222.254
dhcp enabled

NB1 is primary
NB2 is secondary

I took all phones from NB2 and config on NB1

The Phones at site of NB2 are not registering to NB1. They display option 128 missing.
Give phones static ip address with the same results.

IT was not much help with the configuration of the network.

What info do I need from IT to get this resolved. someone set them up over a year.

 

[kwbMitel]

The Phones at site of NB2 are not registering to NB1. They display option 128 missing.
Give phones static ip address with the same results.

Nope, Sorry, you will never get option 128 missing if you have set the phone with static ip options

Option 128 missing is a DHCP response saying that DHCP option 128 is missing.

Try using teleworker mode to point the phones at the other controller.

**********************************************
What's most important is that you realise ... There is no spoon.

 

[mitelguy88]

I see a couple different issues here that concern me, first as a best practice and to save yourself a lot of headaches with SDS errors etc. I would recommend both controllers be at the same software load. Second I would only have one controller handing out addresses on the voice vlan, so turn off dhcp on the resilient controller. If you are getting option 128 missing than either your dhcp scope in the 3300 is not set up or more likely is that the network is not configured correctly. I suspect that if the network admin. would ad options 128, 129 and 130 to the default vlan dchp server your phones would boot. Better yet if you have Cisco or HP switches have the network admin. enable CDP (Cisco) or LLDP (HP) which would automatically put the phones on the voice vlan and will boot using the 3300 dhcp options.

 

[SXWizard]

Most importantly, as mitelguy88 states, get the 4.0 controller upgraded to 4.2 so that SDS can function properly. Or, if possible, upgrade both controllers to MCD 6.0 or 7.0.

Since you want the phones in NB2 to be redundant what you need to do is set up DHCP option 125 on NB2 with the TFTP Server Address set to the IP address of NB2 and the Call Server Address set to the IP address of NB1. As mitelguy88 says, have IT turn on LLDP or CDP in the NB2 switches and then there will be no need for any DHCP settings on the data network. The phone will find it's VLAN, get it's IP address and TFTP load from NB2 and then go to NB1 for call control. Lastly, set the phones that are located in the NB2 building to be resilient to the NB2 controller in the User and Devices form on NB1. If the WAN fails the phones at NB2 will fail over to the NB2 controller and continue working. You will need some trunks on NB2 for the phones to use for outgoing calls during the WAN failure.

 

[LoopyLou]

Had the same missing Option 128 on a new site and statically setting the TFTP server address and RTC address fixed it. But I didn't want to have to do that for all phones so eventually got the IT guys to setup Option 125 correctly and it fixed on the installations of any phones. New it wasn't the 3300 as this was moving a controller from one building to a new building. Same 3300 sames phones new network.

An apple a day keeps the doctor away. Anyone else and you need to throw it harder.

 

[Article80]

Hi all

Customer does not want a cluster. They want one system NB1 to have all phones register to that site and system NB2 to be a redundant system in the event that NB1 fails. All phones were programmed onto NB1 but the Phones at NB2 are not connecting to NB1. IT guy was not much help.

 

[bobcheese]

when you say 'redundant system' do you mean automatic failover in case of failure? If so then the controllers need to be clustered.

 

[LoopyLou]

bobcheese is corrrect. There is no resiliency i.e phones failing to another controller without a cluster. No cluster no failover.

An apple a day keeps the doctor away. Anyone else and you need to throw it harder.

 

[SXWizard]

No cluster, no fail over as others have said.

 

[Article80]

Systems were setup in a cluster, but customer does not want it that way.Customer wants the second controller at another site as a backup if the other fails.Can I have the two with same ip etc with only the main controller connected to the network?

 

[Lundah]

You cannot have a set fail over to a second controller unless the primary and secondary controllers are clustered. Period.

 

[LoopyLou]

So you want to program up two systems with the same IP address and the same database and if system 1 fails you want to unplug it and plug in System 2?

An apple a day keeps the doctor away. Anyone else and you need to throw it harder.

 

[Lundah]

This would be a good application for vMCD, then do the DR stuff in VMWare. From a phone/MCD perspective, the phones are still talking to the same MCD, and VMWare can worry about where the physical-layer stuff is.

 

[LoopyLou]

You can have two systems setup identically as long as only one is connected at time to the network. The problem is that if you make a change on system one you have to duplicate it on system 2.

Also unless the customers network spans the two locations ( i.e you use the same subnet at both sites ) you will likley not be able to have the same IP addresses at the second site as you have on the first. If you can there will still be issues. If system one goes off line the sets don't majically look for another system. The phones would need to be rebooted and the network routing would need to be in place so the phones can try to connect to the second controller.

There are so many issues with doing this that I don't think its worth my time pointing them out.

An apple a day keeps the doctor away. Anyone else and you need to throw it harder.