[cisco-voip] ISR/VG Ethernet redundancy

[Bill Riley]

So you are doing a layer 3 interface on the switchport the VG's are connected to? Are they the same switch or different switches?

I am doing the same thing just wondering how others are doing it.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Leatherman [mailto:ealeatherman at gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 8:53 AM
To: Bill Riley
Cc: Eric Pedersen; Lelio Fulgenzi; Jason Burns; Cisco List VoIP
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] ISR/VG Ethernet redundancy

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