Question about cisco VTP

[azev]

Can VTP go across router ? IE: 2 routers are connected via frame relay. Each router lan port is connected to a cisco switch. One of the switch is running vtp server mode and the other is client mode. Will something like this work ? If I add a new vlan on the switch (running vtp server mode) will the other swich get the information via VTP ?

Does vtp work with different switch other than cisco ?

Thanks

 

[spidey07]

vtp is a layer2 protocol and will not cross a layer3 boundary.

it is cisco proprietary and only works with cisco switches.

Plus there is something very wrong with the design if you need VLAN information to cross a router.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: spidey07
vtp is a layer2 protocol and will not cross a layer3 boundary.

it is cisco proprietary and only works with cisco switches.

Plus there is something very wrong with the design if you need VLAN information to cross a router.

Ok, so I am a bit unsure exactly what you mean. I run a Cisco Call Manager VoIP network for 19 sites. For simplicity sake, let's say I have a VLAN for voice and a VLAN for data. Voice VLAN is 100 and data VLAN is 50. Routers connect each site. Each site has a L2 Cisco switch.

Are you saying this config with VLAN 100 spanning 19 locations across routers is not a good design? I don't think you are, but could you clarify?

 

[randal]

That is not a good design. Your collission domain would be gigantic, and any sort of broadcast from any VLAN100 host (including arps, netbios if any, dhcp, etc) would eat up bandwidth on /all/ of your WAN links - which is very bad. A much better design would be to segment each of your sites into two VLANs (voice/data - more if you need to separate your data nets), then use your routing setup to move traffic between VLANs - do that on site if your switches support it, or at the main office router.

just my $.02,
randal

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: spidey07
vtp is a layer2 protocol and will not cross a layer3 boundary.

it is cisco proprietary and only works with cisco switches.

Plus there is something very wrong with the design if you need VLAN information to cross a router.

Ok, so I am a bit unsure exactly what you mean. I run a Cisco Call Manager VoIP network for 19 sites. For simplicity sake, let's say I have a VLAN for voice and a VLAN for data. Voice VLAN is 100 and data VLAN is 50. Routers connect each site. Each site has a L2 Cisco switch.

Are you saying this config with VLAN 100 spanning 19 locations across routers is not a good design? I don't think you are, but could you clarify?

in your case vlan 100 at site A is not the same vlan 100 as site B. VLAN is a layer2 network (braodcast domain) and once a router is in the mix this creates a layer3 boundary.

Now if you're bridging on the routers and indeed vlan 100 spans 19 sites as a single broadcast domain then yes, that's considered very bad design/practice.

 

[dphantom]

No, it is NOT a single broadcast domain. That's a bad thing. I understand the context of your answer better now. I've been working hard redesigning our network to comply with Cisco best practices in a VoIP/data environment over the same T-1s. Didn't think I was that far off base.
Thanks spidey.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: dphantom
No, it is NOT a single broadcast domain. That's a bad thing. I understand the context of your answer better now. I've been working hard redesigning our network to comply with Cisco best practices in a VoIP/data environment over the same T-1s. Didn't think I was that far off base.
Thanks spidey.

Just follow AVVID and you'll be fine. But follow it to the letter.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: dphantom
No, it is NOT a single broadcast domain. That's a bad thing. I understand the context of your answer better now. I've been working hard redesigning our network to comply with Cisco best practices in a VoIP/data environment over the same T-1s. Didn't think I was that far off base.
Thanks spidey.

Just follow AVVID and you'll be fine. But follow it to the letter.

Yep, that's what I'm doing. Just finishing an upgrade to 4.1(3) from 3.2(3). Ugly but finally almost done. Looking hard at moving to MGCP and getting rid of the DT24/VG200 and putting in a 3745.

 

[bgroff]

Instead of the 37xx series, you should consider the 28xx/38xx series. It gives you more power and expansion options at the same or lower prices. Depending on your needs, you could more than likely get away with using a 28xx series in place of the 3745.

 

[ScottMac]

I seconf the motion on the X800 series (the "Integrated Services Routers").

They are capable of working as a stand-alone Call Manager (Call Manager Express) and are a much better choice for SRST fallback / E911 backup.

Much more power, integrated VPN, Firewall, IDS (if you want 'em) the WIC slots are capable of adding extra GigE ports (though, not at Gig rates - phy only) .... which would be a good way to implement the sub-interfaces / VLANs / trunks that it sounds like you want to implement.

You can also add an Ethernet switch module in the Mod slot(s) (optional PoE on them for IP phones or PoE APs).

Check 'em out (<brag> I have a 2811 at home </brag>) they're pretty slick.

Good Luck

Scott

 

[spidey07]

yeah, the x800 series routers really are sweet.

Its about time IMHO that cisco released something with the power/memory that is needed to do what "they" want it to do. With other low end lines you always worried about what it could do - only the 7xxx series could shine.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: ScottMac
I seconf the motion on the X800 series (the "Integrated Services Routers").

They are capable of working as a stand-alone Call Manager (Call Manager Express) and are a much better choice for SRST fallback / E911 backup.

Much more power, integrated VPN, Firewall, IDS (if you want 'em) the WIC slots are capable of adding extra GigE ports (though, not at Gig rates - phy only) .... which would be a good way to implement the sub-interfaces / VLANs / trunks that it sounds like you want to implement.

You can also add an Ethernet switch module in the Mod slot(s) (optional PoE on them for IP phones or PoE APs).

Check 'em out (<brag> I have a 2811 at home </brag>) they're pretty slick.

Good Luck

Scott

oh please Scott. you can't push that if you tried.

(apart from having chariot at home, you devil you)

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: ScottMac
I seconf the motion on the X800 series (the "Integrated Services Routers").

They are capable of working as a stand-alone Call Manager (Call Manager Express) and are a much better choice for SRST fallback / E911 backup.

Much more power, integrated VPN, Firewall, IDS (if you want 'em) the WIC slots are capable of adding extra GigE ports (though, not at Gig rates - phy only) .... which would be a good way to implement the sub-interfaces / VLANs / trunks that it sounds like you want to implement.

You can also add an Ethernet switch module in the Mod slot(s) (optional PoE on them for IP phones or PoE APs).

Check 'em out (<brag> I have a 2811 at home </brag>) they're pretty slick.

Good Luck

Scott

oh please Scott. you can't push that if you tried.

(apart from having chariot at home, you devil you)

Agree with all the above on the x800 series. Unfortunatley, I have the 3745 already so from a budget perspective have no real choice.

I use 2 PIX 525 in f/o mode and a 7204 for Internet access. Also VPN 3005 for some other requirements. So teh 2800/3800 capabilities are being covered by otehr hardware.

The Cisco Express stuff is not the best fit for our organization.

Thanks for your feedback. Glad to know I'm on the right track, more or less.

 

[polm]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: dphantom
No, it is NOT a single broadcast domain. That's a bad thing. I understand the context of your answer better now. I've been working hard redesigning our network to comply with Cisco best practices in a VoIP/data environment over the same T-1s. Didn't think I was that far off base.
Thanks spidey.

Just follow AVVID and you'll be fine. But follow it to the letter.

What is this "AVVID" you speak of, and where can I go to both read about and possibly "follow it to the letter" ?

I've done some simple searching on Cisco.Com for AVVID, and have a decent idea of what it encompasses, but I'm getting the impression that there is some more technical online reference/resource that includes instruction on desing, config, etc. pertaining to AVVID setups.

 

[dphantom]

AVVID (Architecture for Voice, Video and Integrated Data) is the Cisco IP telephony product. Also called Cisco Call Manager or CCM.

The CCO site (login only) has tons of design info for AVVID and Unity both for an integrated messaging system. There is also a lot available to the public as well so it's a matter of searching throught eh site. For Cisco, I've not found it to be a real friendly searchable site, but given time, the site does have everything you would ever need.

Below are just a couple links for AVVID network design. Also included in the design process should be your router and switch infrastructure, connection to PSTN, 911/e911 service and many other details.

Cisco AVVID QoS

Cisco Wireless AVVID

There is a lot to putting an enterprise class IP telephony product in place. There are also classes available for IP telephony, but a solid background in network design and deployment plus (IMO) solid PBX experience will help.

Poke around the Cisco site. Google searches can often return better info from Cisco's site than Cisco itself.

 

[polm]

thanks, dphantom. Good info.