Looks like all the bridge command are there as well except for RSTP which is a show stopper<br><br>'bridge 1 protocol ?' show ieee (802.1D) but not rstp (802.1w) which would be required to keep SLAs for voice.<br><br>
>can you run the two interfaces to two different uplink switches? <br><br>Yes you can. spanning-tree (802.1d) would take care of it. This would be a nice solution as a single device would take a single IP address instead of wasting 9 (two /30's and /32). But then you are running spanning-tree on a voice gateway and if I had my pick I would go with OSPF or EIGRP :)<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 7:39 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>
<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" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>