[cisco-voip] IOS VG Link redundancy

[Lelio Fulgenzi]

That's an interesting document - something I'll file for future reference. 

However, I'm not sure how it helps here. The VGWs are routers themselves with two uplinks. Since you can't have two interfaces on the same network they have to be separate layer three routes to the upstream router. That's the only I see this work (confirmed by a few others). 

Whether it's static or dynamic, somewhere on the network (and the device) you have to configure routing to get back/forth. Especially if you are using loopbacks. I don't think you can avoid this. 

If you want to use only one interface, then routing is not required, however, I think that was the original post - making use of the two interfaces. 

I'd be glad to hear alternatives. 

--- 
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A. 
Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1 
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN) 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
"Bad grammar makes me [sic]" - Tshirt 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nikola Stojsin" <nikolastojsin at gmail.com> 
To: "Brandon Bennett" <bennetb at gmail.com>, "Jason Aarons (US)" <jason.aarons at us.didata.com> 
Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net 
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 8:41:42 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] IOS VG Link redundancy 




As long as you do not need load balancing between voice gateways, HSRP would work really well here, I think. I do not know what your OSPF topology looks like, but something along the lines of HSRP with totally stubby OSPF area would be my choice here. It is about as simple as it gets. 



If you do need load balancing, you can use Multigroup HRSP ( http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk648/tk362/technologies_configuration_example09186a0080094e90.shtml ), with one caveat: some NICs cannot handle multiple MAC addresses, so, depending on the router model, MHRSP may or may not work. 



Actually, it would be interesting to see which – HSRP, OSPF or EIGRP – would converge/failover the fastest. 



HTH, 

Nikola 









------------------------------------------- 

Nikola Stojsin 

PhD CCIE #12888 

President 

Network Makers LLC 

110 Wall Street, 11th Floor 

New York, NY 10005 

(212) 709-8201 

(212) 706-2986 (fax) 

nikolas at networkmakers.com 

------------------------------------------- 




From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Brandon Bennett 
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 7:38 PM 
To: Jason Aarons (US) 
Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net 
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] IOS VG Link redundancy 










Wh at makes you want to change it? 



Well it's mostly a political thing. We are trying to remove the network team from the gateways and remove the voice team from the network. 

Also 12.4(15)T8 which is required for our CVP install has proven itself so completely unstable that the idea of having it in my routing domain scares me and probably the less services running on it the better. 

I am doing max-metric, and a separate OSPF area for the VGs so that they will never try to route traffic not for them, but it seems to me there should be a better way to have an IOS device that doesn't have to participate with a RP with the rest of the network. 



-Brandon 
_______________________________________________ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip at puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20090126/a303da78/attachment.html>