[cisco-voip] ISR/VG Ethernet redundancy

[Ed Leatherman]

I'm doing a /30 on each interface. Also have the VG224's configured as
EIGRP stub and i'm filtering routes down to them so they don't get our
full table. Seems to work well.


On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Bill Riley <bill at hitechconnection.net> wrote:
> For those that are running a routing protocol on your VG224 or ISR used as a
> voice gateway do you have them dual uplinked? It’s great that you have a
> routing protocol running in the event the L3 path changes but what about the
> physical uplink from the VG to the switches? Do you have that dual
> connected? Are you using either channel or are your running multiple L3
> subnets on each interface?
>
>
>
> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Eric Pedersen
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 4:04 PM
> To: Lelio Fulgenzi; Jason Burns
>
>
> Cc: Cisco List VoIP
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] ISR/VG Ethernet redundancy
>
>
>
> We're running OSPF on our VG224s and ISR PRI gateways for uplink redundancy
> with no issues so far.  It's nice to have the routing protocol intelligence
> to handle upstream failures.
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
> Sent: 25 January 2012 1:19 PM
> To: Jason Burns
> Cc: Cisco List VoIP
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] ISR/VG Ethernet redundancy
>
>
>
> We ended up going the route of EIGRP routing on the VG224s and 3800s.
>
> Unfortunately, we got some not so positive feedback regarding the
> supportedness of EIGRP on VG224s, but like you found out, no real direction
> on how to configure redundancy on these.
>
> I'm far less concerned with a port going down than a switch, so having the
> VG224s uplinked to different switches is our choice.
>
> Lelio
>
>
> ---
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (ANNU)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
>                               - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: "Jason Burns" <burns.jason at gmail.com>
> To: "Bill Riley" <bill at hitechconnection.net>
> Cc: "Cisco List VoIP" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 3:12:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] ISR/VG Ethernet redundancy
>
> I second Etherchannel from the upstream device. I had a customer who
> insisted  on binding to the PortChannel interface for the voice protocols,
> even though we recommended using the Loopback. It's up and running just fine
> and does handle failure of a single link as expected.
>
> -Jason
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Bill Riley <bill at hitechconnection.net>
> wrote:
>
> You should use a loop back and bind everything to in instead of the physical
> interface.
>
> If you want Ethernet redundancy you should be able to create an ether
> channel down from the router if you are going into the same switch or have
> VSS on the 6500.
>
> If not I have also bridged it into two separate switches using a BVI like
> you are looking at.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Ovidiu Popa
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 1:57 PM
> To: Cisco List VoIP
> Subject: [cisco-voip] ISR/VG Ethernet redundancy
>
> Hello everyone
>
> I have a few questions regarding  bridge virtual interfaces and voice
> protocols:
> - is binding sccp and/or mgcp to a bvi interface supported by Cisco Tac?
> - any official configuration guides for this kind of connectivity?
> - anyone have this configuration in production and would care to share
> his/hers feedback?
>
>
> My main goal is to be able to use the spare ethernet interfaces on a
> router/vg for redundancy but I was surprised by the lack of official
> guidance on the subject.
>
> Thanks
> Ovidiu
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
> The contents of this message may contain confidential and/or privileged
>
> subject matter. If this message has been received in error, please contact
>
> the sender and delete all copies. Like other forms of communication,
>
> e-mail communications may be vulnerable to interception by unauthorized
>
> parties. If you do not wish us to communicate with you by e-mail, please
>
> notify us at your earliest convenience. In the absence of such
>
> notification, your consent is assumed. Should you choose to allow us to
>
> communicate by e-mail, we will not take any additional security measures
>
> (such as encryption) unless specifically requested.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>



-- 
Ed Leatherman