[cisco-voip] ISR/VG Ethernet redundancy

Lelio Fulgenzi lelio at uoguelph.ca
Thu Jan 26 10:04:46 EST 2012 

Each interface has a separate /30 network. 

We were considering using one network for the "left" side, and one for the "right" side, however, there would have to be more work involved to filter out traffic so VG224s didn't end up routing traffic for other devices, since they're valid EIGRP neighbours. We took the easy way out. 

I'm sure with some thinking you could do it with two larger networks, one for left, one for right. 

The route points are on the VG224 and the core switches. The access layer switches are simply layer 2 transport (VLAN). 

--- 
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) 


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Riley" <bill at hitechconnection.net> 
To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio at uoguelph.ca> 
Cc: "Cisco List VoIP" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net> 
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 9:59:51 AM 
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] ISR/VG Ethernet redundancy 




So in the diagram below do you have a separate network for each interface on the VG or are you creating a bridge interface on the VG? 







From: Lelio Fulgenzi [mailto:lelio at uoguelph.ca] 
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 8:56 AM 
To: Bill Riley 
Cc: Cisco List VoIP 
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] ISR/VG Ethernet redundancy 




Ideally, we would have each VG224 hooked up directly to a core switch (no distribution layer here), however, there are not enough ports on it, so we created a VLAN for each network segment on two switch stacks, each with dual links to the distribution layer. The VG224 has a link to each stack. 

So something like this: 



--- 
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) 


----- Original Message -----


From: "Bill Riley" <bill at hitechconnection.net> 
To: "Eric Pedersen" <PedersenE at bennettjones.com>, "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio at uoguelph.ca>, "Jason Burns" <burns.jason at gmail.com> 
Cc: "Cisco List VoIP" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net> 
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 8:23:17 AM 
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] ISR/VG Ethernet redundancy 




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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20120126/eb1b86f7/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 8180 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20120126/eb1b86f7/attachment.png>

More information about the cisco-voip mailing list