I've used the loopback method with MGCP, seems to work OK. you have to explicitly tell IOS to use the loopback address as the source interface<br><br>(config)# mgcp bind control source-interface Loopback0<br>(config)# mgcp bind media source-interface Loopback0
<br><br><br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 7/6/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Kevin Thorngren</b> <<a href="mailto:kthorngr@cisco.com">kthorngr@cisco.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
You should be able to get what you described below to work with H.323.<br>I haven't tried this with MGCP (nor H.323) but I don't think it will<br>work as you described. The MGCP GW registers by using the hostname of<br>the router so you won't be able to define two GWs for MGCP.
<br><br>Maybe a better option for either H.323 or MGCP would be to use a<br>loopback interface as the signaling and media interface for either<br>H.323 or MGCP. Then connect the GW to the two switches, each in a<br>different subnet. Inject the route to the loopback into your routing
<br>protocol (network statements under the routing process or static route,<br>depending on your configuration). This way you only need to define<br>one GW for either MGCP or H.323. Since the loopback is a routable<br>
address, CCM will be able to reach it via either path.<br><br>Kevin<br>On Jul 5, 2006, at 7:04 PM, Jonathan Charles wrote:<br><br>> I am assessing the status of an existing implementation and I noticed<br>> that all of the voice gateways are connected to one of the 6509 core
<br>> switches.<br>><br>> I want to move two of the four to the other 6509, but then I realized<br>> that each of these gateways has two Fast Ethernets on them... Can I<br>> attach each gateway to both switches?
<br>><br>> We are currently running H.323, but I am trying to decide if we should<br>> go MGCP, will CCM be able the talk to the gateways on both IP<br>> addresses?<br>><br>> I was thinking we could also enter the gateways twice (on each IP) and
<br>> have the second IP be in a secondary route-group...<br>><br>> What do all of you think?<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> Jonathan<br>> _______________________________________________<br>> cisco-voip mailing list
<br>> <a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a><br>> <a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip</a><br>><br>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>cisco-voip mailing list<br><a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a><br><a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip">
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Ed Leatherman<br>IP Telephony Coordinator<br>West Virginia University<br>Telecommunications and Network Operations