Which TWO of the following are valid methods for providing high availability for IP phones in a CUCM design?
SRST lets a branch router assume call control for its local IP phones when WAN connectivity to the CUCM cluster is lost. Phones fall back to the gateway and retain basic calling, satisfying the branch survivability requirement.
Why this answer
Option C (SRST deployment) is correct because Survivable Remote Site Telephony lets remote-site IP phones register with a local router/gateway when WAN connectivity to the CUCM cluster is lost, keeping basic call processing available and thus providing high availability for those phones. Option E (CUCM Group configuration) is correct because a CUCM Group defines an ordered list of CUCM nodes that a device pool's phones use for registration; if the primary subscriber fails, phones fail over to the next CUCM node in the group, which is the standard CUCM redundancy mechanism. Option A is not a high-availability method for phone registration: multiple TFTP servers in Option 150 only provide redundancy for configuration file download, not for call processing/registration.
Option B is invalid because DHCP cannot provide IP address redundancy for phones; DHCP only leases addresses and does not offer a failover address mechanism for the phone itself. Option D is not a CUCM phone high-availability method; CUCM uses a primary/secondary/tertiary node failover model via CUCM Groups and device pools, not round-robin load balancing of phone registrations.
Exam trap
CLCOR often tests the confusion between redundancy for configuration files (TFTP) and redundancy for call control (CUCM Groups, SRST).