[cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248

[Madziarczyk, Jonathan]

I use a VG224.  I have currently not been able to find a way to make the
two Ethernet Interfaces work as redundant interfaces as far as CCM is
concerned.  If you're using SCCP to CCM you have to specify the MAC
address so that doesn't work.  If you're using MGCP, you enter the IP
address of the device.  Using a loopback address will not work.  It
looks like you might be able to use HSRP, but I've never tried it.

 

Someone here can speak to the redundant interface issue I'm sure, but
just know that even though it says it's running IOS, it's not as robust.
Just because it has two Ethernet interfaces, it doesn't mean you can use
them the way you may be wanting to.  Otherwise it's a pretty nice box
and is simple as all getout to configure in MGCP.

 

My $.02

 

JM

 

  _____  

From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 10:58 AM
To: Ed Leatherman
Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248

 

I like the idea of redundant links. 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day:   buffer overrun

	----- Original Message ----- 

	From: Ed Leatherman <mailto:ealeatherman at gmail.com>  

	To: Lelio Fulgenzi <mailto:lelio at uoguelph.ca>  

	Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net 

	Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 11:54 AM

	Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248

	 

	I have some vg224's on order for a project this summer, the
reason we chose them instead of the 248's was we had a requirement that
the devices all needed dual ethernet interfaces (is for a dorm on remote
campus). 248's would have been less expensive due to the port density
but we couldnt get around the dual interface requirement. Haven't
recieved them yet so I can't comment on anything else about the 224's. 
	
	We've been using the 248's in our health sciences center,
haven't really had any problems with them. I'd prefer IOS on them but
thats my only real complaint. No one has tried to hook up a high speed
fax yet though, I heard those werent supported unless you turn them
down. 

	On 4/10/06, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca> wrote: 

	Just wondering what people's opinions are on the two analog
gateways (vg248 vs vg224). I'm proposing a project that requires 128
ports (perhaps more) and we only have experience (mostly good) with the
vg248. I'd rather keep our inventory similar so I'm leaning towards them
rather than starting a new with vg224s. 

	 

	Also, in the configuration guide, there is an option for IPSEC
software. Do I need this?

	
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
	Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
	Network Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario
N1G 2W1
	(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
	
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
	Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
	50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day:   buffer overrun

	
	_______________________________________________
	cisco-voip mailing list
	cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
	https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
	
	

	
	
	
	-- 
	Ed Leatherman
	IP Telephony Coordinator
	West Virginia University
	Telecommunications and Network Operations 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20060410/129b418e/attachment.html