From: Guyler, Rik (rguyler@shp-dayton.org)
Date: Mon Mar 06 2006 - 11:35:50 GMT-3
Leigh, you are absolutely correct, which is why I was thinking of a separate
dedicated physical link between switches for this purpose. Sorry if I
wasn't specific enough about this. So in this scenrio you would have your
normal GigE uplinks setup as L3 interfaces and a second link GE/FE, etc.
also connecting all switches. These interfaces would all be setup as L2 and
use the same VLAN tag like 999 or whatever. No trunking and you wouldn't
even really need an SVI on any of the switches for this VLAN unless you
needed a path out of it, then you could create an SVI on one of your
head-end devices running L3 to be the gatway out.
Yeah, I wasn't planning on trying to run the RSPAN vlan over the L3 links.
No way to do that as far as I know.
Rik
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Leigh Harrison
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 9:40 AM
To: Guyler, Rik
Cc: 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
Subject: Re: To route or not to route.....
Hey there Rik,
I'd had a thought about that and leaving one vlan for rspan specifically,
but the problem there is that on the uplink interfaces, you have to throw in
the commands: "no switchport, ip address 1.2.3.4"
which means that no vlans will be passed over!!
LH
Guyler, Rik wrote:
>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
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>Subscription information may be found at:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>Subscription information may be found at:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 01 2006 - 10:07:38 GMT-3