[cisco-voip] asymetrical routing and voice - thoughts? requirements?

[Wes Sisk]

We're missing a bit of information like how you got asymmetrical routing 
to the router interfaces.  Care to share?

Otherwise, in theoretical discussion, my peers agree that router will 
service traffic for any locally configured IP from any network interface.

There are the classic issues of binding VOIP protocols to interfaces 
with routable IP addresses but that is a separate issue.

/Wes

Lelio Fulgenzi wrote:
> OK, not sure if this has been discussed before, but I just tried to 
> get all my voice through one interface of my VG224 and in doing so, I 
> lost the route to the other interface. We did this by using the delay 
> command. Anything else I've been told, will take significant time to 
> deploy.
>
> So the question is, in the case of end devices (mainly gateways) that 
> have two uplinks, how important is it to ensure that only one side is 
> always used? Is it a requirement or is it a nice to have? I'd rather 
> not be introducing delay statements if I don't have to.
>
> Or is it all just to make troubleshooting easier?
>
> ---
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
>                               - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20101013/1216b23e/attachment.html>