If it works, you're turning the two routed ports into two switch ports. So yes, you'd be able to connect to two different switches. The following caveats come to mind though.<br><br>1. The switches you connect to should be equidistant from the STP root. You want STP to block one of the ports on the router so that other traffic doesn't flow through the router<br>
2. STP convergence is on the order of 30-50s, you'd want RSTP for sub 5 seconds. The feature navigator is mum on the issue, other than it supports IRB. I'm going to guess it probably doesn't.<br><br><a href="http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk389/tk815/technologies_tech_note09186a0080094663.shtml">http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk389/tk815/technologies_tech_note09186a0080094663.shtml</a> <br>
<br>Personally, we run them on one interface. It's easier to troubleshoot, and our analogue stuff isn't that important to us. If I needed redundancy, I'd run a routing protocol and go the anycast route on the /32.<br>
<br>Sean<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lelio@uoguelph.ca">lelio@uoguelph.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br>looks like i can enter "interface bvi ?" on the command line, so i'm guessing it supports it. <br><br>i didn't have much luck searching on CCO and finding something to describe it, so I'm not sure how it would apply here, i.e. can you run the two interfaces to two different uplink switches? <br>
<br>definately something to consider for the future though, that's for sure.<br><br>actually, i think i recall seeing BVI interfaces on the old 350APs!<div class="Ih2E3d"><br><br>----- Original Message -----<br>From: "Sean Walberg" <<a href="mailto:sean@ertw.com" target="_blank">sean@ertw.com</a>><br>
To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <<a href="mailto:lelio@uoguelph.ca" target="_blank">lelio@uoguelph.ca</a>>, <a href="mailto:nikola@att.net" target="_blank">nikola@att.net</a>, <a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a><br>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 9:21:24 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern<br>Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] IOS VG Link redundancy<br><br></div><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">Do the vg224s support BVI? Turn the two interfaces into a bridge with<br>
the bvi int holding the IP and let STP sort it out. Would work a lot<br>better if it supports rstp.<br><br>Sean<br><br>On 1/26/09, Lelio Fulgenzi <<a href="mailto:lelio@uoguelph.ca" target="_blank">lelio@uoguelph.ca</a>> wrote:<br>
> That's an interesting document - something I'll file for future reference.<br>><br>> However, I'm not sure how it helps here. The VGWs are routers themselves<br>> with two uplinks. Since you can't have two interfaces on the same network<br>
> they have to be separate layer three routes to the upstream router. That's<br>> the only I see this work (confirmed by a few others).<br>><br>> Whether it's static or dynamic, somewhere on the network (and the device)<br>
> you have to configure routing to get back/forth. Especially if you are using<br>> loopbacks. I don't think you can avoid this.<br>><br>> If you want to use only one interface, then routing is not required,<br>
> however, I think that was the original post - making use of the two<br>> interfaces.<br>><br>> I'd be glad to hear alternatives.<br>><br>> ---<br>> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.<br>> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1<br>
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)<br>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<br>> "Bad grammar makes me [sic]" - Tshirt<br>><br>><br>> ----- Original Message -----<br>
> From: "Nikola Stojsin" <<a href="mailto:nikolastojsin@gmail.com" target="_blank">nikolastojsin@gmail.com</a>><br>> To: "Brandon Bennett" <<a href="mailto:bennetb@gmail.com" target="_blank">bennetb@gmail.com</a>>, "Jason Aarons (US)"<br>
> <<a href="mailto:jason.aarons@us.didata.com" target="_blank">jason.aarons@us.didata.com</a>><br>> Cc: <a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a><br>> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 8:41:42 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern<br>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] IOS VG Link redundancy<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> As long as you do not need load balancing between voice gateways, HSRP would<br>> work really well here, I think. I do not know what your OSPF topology looks<br>
> like, but something along the lines of HSRP with totally stubby OSPF area<br>> would be my choice here. It is about as simple as it gets.<br>><br>><br>><br>> If you do need load balancing, you can use Multigroup HRSP (<br>
> <a href="http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk648/tk362/technologies_configuration_example09186a0080094e90.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk648/tk362/technologies_configuration_example09186a0080094e90.shtml</a><br>
> ), with one caveat: some NICs cannot handle multiple MAC addresses, so,<br>> depending on the router model, MHRSP may or may not work.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Actually, it would be interesting to see which – HSRP, OSPF or EIGRP – would<br>
> converge/failover the fastest.<br>><br>><br>><br>> HTH,<br>><br>> Nikola<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> -------------------------------------------<br>
><br>> Nikola Stojsin<br>><br>> PhD CCIE #12888<br>><br>> President<br>><br>> Network Makers LLC<br>><br>> 110 Wall Street, 11th Floor<br>><br>> New York, NY 10005<br>><br>> (212) 709-8201<br>
><br>> (212) 706-2986 (fax)<br>><br>> <a href="mailto:nikolas@networkmakers.com" target="_blank">nikolas@networkmakers.com</a><br>><br>> -------------------------------------------<br>><br>><br>><br>
><br>> From: <a href="mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net</a><br>> [mailto:<a href="mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net</a>] On Behalf Of Brandon Bennett<br>
> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 7:38 PM<br>> To: Jason Aarons (US)<br>> Cc: <a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a><br>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] IOS VG Link redundancy<br>
><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> Wh at makes you want to change it?<br>><br>><br>><br>> Well it's mostly a political thing. We are trying to remove the network team<br>
> from the gateways and remove the voice team from the network.<br>><br>> Also 12.4(15)T8 which is required for our CVP install has proven itself so<br>> completely unstable that the idea of having it in my routing domain scares<br>
> me and probably the less services running on it the better.<br>><br>> I am doing max-metric, and a separate OSPF area for the VGs so that they<br>> will never try to route traffic not for them, but it seems to me there<br>
> should be a better way to have an IOS device that doesn't have to<br>> participate with a RP with the rest of the network.<br>><br>><br>><br>> -Brandon<br>> _______________________________________________ cisco-voip mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a><br>> <a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip</a><br>
<br>-- <br>Sent from my mobile device<br><br>Sean Walberg <<a href="mailto:sean@ertw.com" target="_blank">sean@ertw.com</a>> <a href="http://ertw.com/" target="_blank">http://ertw.com/</a><br></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Sean Walberg <<a href="mailto:sean@ertw.com">sean@ertw.com</a>> <a href="http://ertw.com/">http://ertw.com/</a><br>