From: Guyler, Rik (rguyler@shp-dayton.org)
Date: Wed Mar 01 2006 - 10:45:55 GMT-3
Leigh, I haven't run into this but we're considering L3 at the access layer
as well for future design. The problem I see is once you go with L3 you no
longer have a path to really setup the RSPAN. What about creating a
separate L2 link between all switches dedicated just for the RSPAN session?
I really like the L3 access layer design but it certainly makes things like
this much more interesting... ;-)
Rik
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Leigh Harrison
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 7:48 AM
To: FORUM
Subject: To route or not to route.....
All,
I'm currently working on a design for a customer. Straight forward design
with Access and a Core. 3750's in the access layer and a 6513 in the core
(yes there is only 1, but the customer already has it, it has dual sup cards
and dual power supplies...) the 3750's are in stacks and there is dual gig
links back to the core.
I was at a Cisco seminar recently where Cisco said that the best practice is
to route, rather than use spanning tree and switch, essentially turn off
spanning tree. I'm quite happy to run either way, but I do have a
question:-
We are running VoIP on the network and there is call recording software
going in. This needs to have the ports of the gatekeepers span'd to it so
that it can do the recording. If I'm routing my network, what are the
options for accomplishing this if my gatekeepers are not connected to the
same switch?
I presume that someone out there has run into a similar issue, so any
insight would be greatly appreciated.
Best Regards
LH
#15331
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 01 2006 - 10:07:37 GMT-3