<html><head><style type='text/css'>p { margin: 0; }</style></head><body><div style='font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt; color: #000000'>The HSRP config provides a virtual SRST address that the VG224s can connect to. If one router goes down, they register to the other.<br><br><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>Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it. <br> - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)<br><br><br>----- Original Message -----<br>From: "Peter Slow" <peter.slow@gmail.com><br>To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio@uoguelph.ca><br>Cc: "Brantley Richbourg" <Brantley.Richbourg@mmicnc.com>, "cisco-voip voyp list" <cisco-voip@puck.nether.net><br>Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 12:25:14 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern<br>Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] weighted EIGRP routes<br><br>Lelio,<br> multipath and voice mix rather poorly. also, you shoudlnt be using<br>HSRP in this scenario.<br> What need do you have for L2 connectivity between the two<br>etherswitch modules? This really seems like bad design. What is it<br>that you're trying to accomplish?<br><br><br>-Peter<br>(R&S / V #9048 ;)<br><br>On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca> wrote:<br>> ...it can be, but we're not using it as a layer three switch. we decided to<br>> do all the routing on the router to make it a simpler config. we'll end up<br>> saving money two since we don't have to buy the more expensive L3 switch and<br>> pay for ip services license for EIGRP.<br>><br>> we'll try that out. thanks for the pointers.<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>> Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.<br>> - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)<br>><br>><br>> ----- Original Message -----<br>> From: "Brantley Richbourg" <Brantley.Richbourg@MMICNC.COM><br>> To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio@uoguelph.ca><br>> Cc: "Nate VanMaren" <VanMarenNP@ldschurch.org>, "cisco-voip voyp list"<br>> <cisco-voip@puck.nether.net><br>> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 10:57:58 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern<br>> Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] weighted EIGRP routes<br>><br>> It would need to be changed on the router's g2/0.201 interface where you are<br>> running EIGRP. I assume that your switch is not a layer 3 switch, right?<br>><br>> ________________________________<br>> From: Lelio Fulgenzi [mailto:lelio@uoguelph.ca]<br>> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 10:43 AM<br>> To: Brantley Richbourg<br>> Cc: Nate VanMaren; cisco-voip voyp list<br>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] weighted EIGRP routes<br>><br>> OK. In this case, the "interface" that connects the routers to the VG224 are<br>> not a physical interface, but a logical VLAN (or sub) interface.<br>><br>> do I put the bandwidth/delay command on the gi2/0.201 sub-interface or on<br>> the switch's physical interface?<br>><br>> ________________________________<br>> on the router:<br>><br>> interface gi2/0<br>> desc Service Module<br>> interface gi2/0.201<br>> encap dot1q 201<br>> ip address 192.168.201.1 /24<br>><br>> on the internal switch:<br>><br>> interface gi0/1<br>> vlan 201<br>> desc VG224<br>> interface gi0/18<br>> desc trunk to router<br>> allowed VLANs 201 (among others)<br>><br>> on the vg224:<br>><br>> interface fast0/0<br>> desc link to router<br>> ip address 192.168.201.2 /24<br>> ________________________________<br>><br>><br>><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>> Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.<br>> - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)<br>><br>><br>> ----- Original Message -----<br>> From: "Brantley Richbourg" <Brantley.Richbourg@MMICNC.COM><br>> To: "Nate VanMaren" <VanMarenNP@ldschurch.org>, "Lelio Fulgenzi"<br>> <lelio@uoguelph.ca>, "cisco-voip voyp list" <cisco-voip@puck.nether.net><br>> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 10:33:02 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern<br>> Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] weighted EIGRP routes<br>><br>> If you want to change the metric calculations for an EIGRP route, you have<br>> to modify parameters that EIGRP uses to calculate the feasible distance. The<br>> bandwidth and delay commands on the interface(s) in question can accomplish<br>> this. You can verify by looking at the "show ip route" and you should see<br>> the next hop as the one for your primary path. "show ip eigrp topo"<br>> command will also show how feasible distance was calculated for each<br>> upstream router.<br>><br>> If you change the bandwidth or delay on the interface that belongs to the<br>> upstream router, that will change the "Reported Distance" sent to the<br>> downstream router, which will in turn change the "weight" on that router to<br>> the upstream router.<br>> ________________________________<br>> From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net<br>> [cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi<br>> [lelio@uoguelph.ca]<br>> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 9:30 PM<br>> To: cisco-voip voyp list<br>> Subject: [cisco-voip] weighted EIGRP routes<br>><br>> Any pointers on how to tell a downstream EIGRP neighbour to weigh one route<br>> better than another? Do I put the weight on the downstream neighbour to say<br>> EIGRP routes coming in on one interface should be weighted more heavily? Or<br>> on the upstream router to push down the weights?<br>><br>> Basically, what I have is this:<br>><br>> ________________________________<br>> +-----------------------+<br>> V V<br>> 3945 -> switch -> VG224 <- switch <- 3945, where switch = SM-ESx-16<br>><br>> (view with fixed font)<br>> ________________________________<br>> Two 3945s with service module ethernet switches which connects to the two<br>> VG224 ports. All routing is done on the router and the switch provides layer<br>> two connectivity. A port channel group between the two switches allow the<br>> routers to communicate HSRP keepalives. The VG224 is an EIGRP stub, and the<br>> two upstream routers send out only default routes to the VG224 (that's all I<br>> want).<br>><br>> Everything is working great. Except for the fact that the two upstream<br>> routers are equal weight. This means that when the VG224 is talking to the<br>> active HSRP address, it's going back and forth. Since the layer two link is<br>> up between the routers, it still works, but not ideal. Bad things happen if<br>> the link between the routers goes down - split brain!<br>><br>> Any pointers?<br>><br>><br>><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>> Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.<br>> - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)<br>><br>><br>><br>> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)<br>> and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized<br>> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the<br>> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all<br>> copies of the original message.<br>><br>> Confidentiality: The information in this electronic mail may contain<br>> confidential, sensitive and/or protected health information intended only<br>> for the addressee(s). Any other person, including anyone who believes he/she<br>> might have received it due to an addressing error, is requested to notify<br>> this sender immediately by return e-mail, and shall delete it without<br>> further reading and retention. The information shall not be forwarded or<br>> shared unless in compliance with MMIC policies on confidentiality, and/or<br>> the written permission of this sender.<br>><br>> Confidentiality: The information in this electronic mail may contain<br>> confidential, sensitive and/or protected health information intended only<br>> for the addressee(s). Any other person, including anyone who believes he/she<br>> might have received it due to an addressing error, is requested to notify<br>> this sender immediately by return e-mail, and shall delete it without<br>> further reading and retention. The information shall not be forwarded or<br>> shared unless in compliance with MMIC policies on confidentiality, and/or<br>> the written permission of this sender.<br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> cisco-voip mailing list<br>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<br>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip<br>><br>><br></div></body></html>