The only reason you might not would be that all voicemail and AA services would come off the master PBX.
Otherwise, yes, it does make configuration easier. Mike On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 22:16 -0800, J Coatline wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Damian > Krzeminski <dkrze...@nortel.com> wrote: > > > There is a bug in sipXconfig (XCF-3296) that effectively > prevent it from > configuring sipXbridge on a remote server. Once it's fixed (by > the end of > the month) you can experiment with configuring it on a remote > server. > Ask again then: I'll tell you how to remove one sipXbridge per > cluster > limitation in sipXconfig. > > Independent of that: are you sure you want a single HA sipXecs > and not 2 > (or more) connected sipXecs installations. Why? > D. > > Thanks, Damian, for explaining the situation. > > > Regarding a single HA vs 2 connected sipXecs installations, once the 1 > sipXbridge per cluster limitation is gone, why would one _not_ do HA? > > > > I admit I haven't thought it all through and don't understand all the > implications, but HA seemed logical because I have one "system" which > I'd like to configure globally (which sounds simpler than managing > multiple systems, and also setting up interconnects), plus the added > benefit of redundancy should one of the servers go down. > > > > In short, it struck me as more elegant, but I recognize that I may > well be failing to understand limitations of sipXecs that might > actually make HA more trouble than it's worth. > > > > _______________________________________________ > sipx-users mailing list > sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org > List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users > Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-users _______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-users
