Re: To route or not to route.....

From: ccie_2006@comcast.net
Date: Thu Mar 02 2006 - 18:49:52 GMT-3

Next message: Chris Lewis: "Re: voip over VPN"
Previous message: ccie_2006@comcast.net: "Re: To route or not to route....."
Maybe in reply to: Leigh Harrison: "To route or not to route....."
Next in thread: Troy Levin: "RE: To route or not to route....."
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

I meant to say I would prefer running IGPs to the closet instead of Spanning-tree.

We just implemented the exact same solution where I work. We have a huge voice network with Meeting place, video conferencing and IPTV. As matter of fact we have absolutely no POTS lines. We have a total of 5000 users with a possible 5000 more joining the campus. When we originally purposed it, a bunch of old school CCIEs started laughing at us. But after testing and comparing how long spanning tree takes to reconverge compared to routing (OSPF or EIGRP). And not to mentioned, how easy it is to troubleshoot unlike spanning-tree. Where it can takes almost a day to find where the loop was started (not really a day exaggerating here no flames please :) but a long time. Everything is running fine now I would prefer running IGPs to the closet instead of Spanning-tree. I think Cisco is going to push this more and more as time goes on.
From: postmaster@onnurimail.com
To: ccie_2006@comcast.net
Subject: [Err] Re: To route or not to route.....
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 21:45:19 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Converted-To-Plain-Text: from Multipart/mixed by GroupStudy
X-Converted-To-Plain-Text: Alternative section used was text/plain

Transmit Report:

joykang@onnurimail.com?!0T 8^@O 9_<[@; 29x =C55G_Av88 =GFPGO?4=@4O4Y.
(=GFP @L@/ : 550 joykang@onnurimail.com... User unknown(127.0.0.1))

<B|0m> =GFP @L@/?! 4kGQ <38m
User unknown :8^@O@; <v=EGR ;g?k@Z0! A8@gGOAv >J@=
Socket connect fail:<v=E 8^@O <-9v?M ?,0a =GFP
DATA write fail :<v=E 8^@O <-9v7N 8^<<Av <[=E =GFP
DATA reponse fail :<v=E 8^@O <-9v7N:NEM 8^<<Av <v=E =GFP
Reporting-MTA: dns; onnurimail.com

Final-Recipient: rfc822;joykang@onnurimail.com
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 error - joykang@onnurimail.com... User unknown(127.0.0.1)
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0
From: ccie_2006@comcast.net
To: Leigh Harrison <ccileigh@gmail.com>, FORUM <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Subject: Re: To route or not to route.....
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 21:43:46 +0000
Message-Id: <030220062143.6684.440767120000BEE600001A1C2205884484C0CFCFCDA10A070C0C@comcast.>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: nobody@groupstudy.com
Reply-To: ccie_2006@comcast.net
Errors-to: ccielab-owner@groupstudy.com
Precedence: bulk

We just implemented the exact same solution where I work. We have a huge voice network with Meeting place, video conferencing and IPTV. As matter of fact we have absolutely no POTS lines. We have a total of 5000 users with a possible 5000 more joining the campus. When we originally purposed it, a bunch of old school CCIEs started laughing at us. But after testing and comparing how long spanning tree takes to reconverge compared to routing (OSPF or EIGRP). And not to mentioned, how easy it is to troubleshoot unlike spanning-tree. Where it can takes almost a day to find where the loop was started (not really a day exaggerating here no flames please :) but a long time. We decided to go with it.
Everything is running fine, now I would prefer running spanning to the closet instead of Spanning-tree. I think Cisco is going to push this more and more as time goes on.

-------------- Original message --------------
From: Leigh Harrison <ccileigh@gmail.com>

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

Next message: Chris Lewis: "Re: voip over VPN"
Previous message: ccie_2006@comcast.net: "Re: To route or not to route....."
Maybe in reply to: Leigh Harrison: "To route or not to route....."
Next in thread: Troy Levin: "RE: To route or not to route....."
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 01 2006 - 10:07:37 GMT-3