[cisco-voip] IOS VG Link redundancy

[Brandon Bennett]

Looks like all the bridge command are there as well except for RSTP which is
a show stopper

'bridge 1 protocol ?' show ieee (802.1D) but not rstp (802.1w) which would
be required to keep SLAs for voice.

>can you run the two interfaces to two different uplink switches?

Yes you can.  spanning-tree (802.1d) would take care of it.  This would be a
nice solution as a single device would take a single IP address instead of
wasting 9 (two /30's and /32).  But then you are running spanning-tree on a
voice gateway and if I had my pick I would go with OSPF or EIGRP :)


On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca> wrote:

>
> looks like i can enter "interface bvi ?" on the command line, so i'm
> guessing it supports it.
>
> i didn't have much luck searching on CCO and finding something to describe
> it, so I'm not sure how it would apply here, i.e. can you run the two
> interfaces to two different uplink switches?
>
> definately something to consider for the future though, that's for sure.
>
> actually, i think i recall seeing BVI interfaces on the old 350APs!
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sean Walberg" <sean at ertw.com>
> To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio at uoguelph.ca>, nikola at att.net,
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 9:21:24 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] IOS VG Link redundancy
>
> Do the vg224s support BVI?  Turn the two interfaces into a bridge with
> the bvi int holding the IP and let STP sort it out.  Would work a lot
> better if it supports rstp.
>
> Sean
>
> On 1/26/09, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca> wrote:
> > 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
>
> --
> Sent from my mobile device
>
> Sean Walberg <sean at ertw.com>    http://ertw.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/f6123b50/attachment.html>