[cisco-voip] IOS VG Link redundancy

[Brandon Bennett]

On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca> wrote:

> Trying to separate the two (voice and network) will probably give you more
> trouble than it's worth. I can understand wanting to separate the two
> groups, but you should be able to work together without much issue. Most of
> the time, it's really just working out a configuration and then letting it
> be.
>

What are your best practices for routing protocol configuration.  /30's for
the interfaces?  Different RP then the rest of the network.  Use the
existing RP with proper areas/stubs/etc?


>
> We have two seperate voice and network groups, but we work very closely
> (we're in the same building actually) on many of our projects. The VGW and
> VG224s is a perfect example. We're working together on another project on
> moving our voice servers behind a set of redundant server farm switches with
> FWSM and ACE modules and making sure we conform to all of Cisco's
> requirements. This would be impossible without a strong network team.
>

Well I am actuay come from the network team and span both teams currently.
Our network team is quite strong in networking but doesn't know a lick of
voice.  Our voice team however is currently comprised of old Siemens and
Avaya techs who can hardly spell gateway and are having a hard time being
introduced into voice and IOS routing on top of that is just way to much.

Also given the IOS stability issues I have had across devices I was trying
to limit a VG224 or a dedicated ingress gateway to just one task.  Not IGW
as well as routing.

I guess the question I should ask is how do i template the RP configuration
as best as I can to allows both teams to work more independently while
preventing any catastrophic issues.

This may be more complicated than i thought.



>
> Consider the the gateways as just another network device with voice as a
> service.
>

I was afraid of that being that case.  I think I need to attack this from
another angle.  I have two very stubborn teams who either don't want to do
anything with voice (which with as unstable as it is I don't blame them) or
don't want to do anything with networking (which as complicated as it is to
a new comer i don't blame them either)

So maybe I am trying to figure out a technical solution to a political issue
when I should really just be addressing it.


Thanks for your input.

-Brandon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20090126/b106fd48/attachment.html>