Is it possible, Cisco 1720 1

[shotgunsmitty]

I have a Cisco 1720 with two Wic1Enet cards. This gives me a total of three ethernet interfaces.

I have a situation where my phone system (layer 2) and data network(layer 3) is on the same switch. I would like to separate traffic coming in from one interface and direct network data to slot 1 and phone traffic to slot 0.

I have a test bench set up for this and would certainly welcome any help. I've been told that it's possible, that it's not possible, that I need an extended operating system, that I need new routers, etc...I still haven't seen it work yet. Help!

 

[eurobadger]

Are you trying to treat one of your ethernets as a trunk? If so, the 1700 series cannot handle it. Trunking/multiple VLANs are not featured any any 1700 series IOS (as far as I am aware).

It might be possible to do it using two sub-interfaces on the single ethernet port, and having separate IP ranges for the voice and data as they come in, and routing one address range to the second port and the other range to the third.

EB

 

[shotgunsmitty]

Treat it as a trunk. No.
As for the separate IP ranges on each ethernet port, I would like to, but...since my phone system is layer 2, all phone traffic gets passed at that level so is therefore non-routable. Data traffic is routable, of course, with IPs for each pc on that lan.
Bridging would work nicely if I could divert the IP traffic from the incoming interface (fastethernet0) to my intended interface (ethernet1).

I would like to know if it's possible to do this, but haven't happened on the answer yet.

 

[burtsbees]

It seems to me you can do this with layer 3 routing---no info (including layer two) will see eachother in different subnets (layer 3 routed) unless you want it to.
Eurobadger---the 1720 does not support trunking, but the 1721 definitely does, and I am not sure about the 1751.

Burt

 

[eurobadger]

Hi Burt

I have trawled Cisco's Feature Navigator to find an IOS that supports this. I can find no entries for 1700s at all.

If you know of an IOS that will support trunks on a 1720, please let me know; it would make my life easier.

Many thanks

 

[shotgunsmitty]

burtsbees, so how would I convince the two do do such a thing? Maybe I'm messing up in my routing table. I'm using 10.0.2.100 for fastethernet0 (incoming with data and phone), 10.0.0.100 for ethernet1 (data only), and 10.0.3.100 for ethernet0 (phone only).

Traffic must be handed back and forth between these interfaces, as my phone must find the call processor on 10.0.3.100 and vice versa. Also, data must find my servers on 10.0.0.100 and vice versa, my servers must be able to find those pcs on 10.0.2.100.

What would a sample routing table look like so that I can compare it to mine? Could someone crank one out quickly or would that take time and too much effort? I'm still needing help, thanks, folks!

 

[supatech]

I think you are looking at this problem the wrong way. If you have a decent managed switch (doesn't have to be cisco) just setup the switch ports and router to have seperate vlans one for voice and one for data (of course you would need to setup the phones and call manager to the correct network). You don't need the fe ports on the router your subinterfaces should take the vlan info and you can route them whereever you need to go. I don't understand what your overall goal here is, Are you having a problem with voice quality, where are fe1 and fe2 connected too.



CCNA MCSE MCP NET+ A+ Security+

 

[shotgunsmitty]

The vlans didn't work with my setup. I have an hp4000M managed switch, but moving things around and setting up vlans didn't work.

I have a remote shop that has data and phones over a mile away that travels by aerial bridge into my office (LAN/Server room).

I am in the process of upgrading and segregating data from phone traffic for increased performance. Eventually the traffic will be split, data on one side, phone on the other. I only have one aerial bridge, so that MUST bring in phone and data traffic. I would love to have two of the router interfaces be a bridge while routing the data to the third.

Does this make better sense?

 

[burtsbees]

Eurobadger---I said a 1721 will do trunking, not a 1720.

Burt

 

[eurobadger]

Burt

Apologies, I have found it now. Also possible on 1750-V.

Thanks; have a star

EB

 

[supatech]

what kind of aerial bridges do you have?

CCNA MCSE MCP NET+ A+ Security+

 

[shotgunsmitty]

Cisco BR500 bridges. They have a lan at my remote location, plugged into the bridges, everything (layer 2 and layer 3) gets shoved into my lan.

The aerial bridges work just fine. I don't want to mess with those at all. But they come into my managed switch and from there I would like to split the traffic. Currently I have replicated this on an 8 port switch, one computer, one phone, all plugged into my managed switch so that I can test before rollout.

I, too, would think that it would be as simple as allowing ALL traffic to route from FE0 to E0 and vice versa, and FE0 to E1 and vice versa for data.

 

[supatech]

look into route maps, if you have all traffic coming in one interface you can use route maps to route certain traffic that matches what you specify, IE. route phone traffic to to fe0 and data to fe, they are setup like ACL's

CCNA MCSE MCP NET+ A+ Security+

 

[dtrtel]

The solution sounds too simple to me....

Let me check the facts:

1) You have wireless bridge between Main and Remote site
2) The wireless LAN segment (key point) carrys both Voice and Data traffic.
3) You need separate LANs at the remote site for VOICE and DATA.
4) The Voice traffic needs to be bridged back to the main site so the phones and controller are on the same LAN (10.0.3.x)

The wireless bridge is already doing what you want. Don't complicate matters by trying to pass the voice traffic through the remote router. Just split off the VOICE traffic by inserting a simple switch between the remote wireless bridge and the remote router's "upstream" interface. Then connect your remote LAN directly to the switch inserted between the bridge and router.

Mainsite--BR500~~~BR500--SWITCH--Router--DataLAN
|
VoiceLAN



--jeff

http://linkedin.com/in/JeffLynch

 

[shotgunsmitty]

drtel,
Thanks for your response, but here's what I have. I'll do my best to replicate your style. This is how it exists at the moment, the second is what I would like to do.

Remote site(data/phone)--BR500~~~BR500---SWITCH---Mainsite(dataphone)

Here is what I want to do:



Remote(data/ph)--BR500~~~BR500---SWITCH---DATA
|
|PHONE

The bridges for our purposes here should not be looked at at all, they're for all intensive purposes, invisible. That's why I didn't mention them to begin with.

 

[shotgunsmitty]

Here is the infrastructure that I have implemented at the moment to include the 1720 router (I have left the BR500 bridges out intentionally)

Remote(data/ph)-----Router1720----Data
|
|--------Phone


Remote is coming in via FE0, Phone is E0, Data is E1

 

[dtrtel]

You've got a layer 2 and layer 3 issue. You need to consider switching (L2) and routing (L3). Move the PhoneLAN connection from the router's E0 port to the SWITCH I recommeded you insert between the Bridge and router at the remote site.

--jeff

http://linkedin.com/in/JeffLynch

 

[shotgunsmitty]

You're absolutely right, as stated in the original problem, I have layer 2 traffic and layer 3 traffic that needs to be sent out two different physical interfaces.

I have a few questions, and I don't want to sound bad in any way, so please forgive me if I do.
What will moving the router to the remote site accomplish?
That will essentially be exactly the setup that I have right now. The router will be connected to my managed switches regardless of where they are physically located.

However, I am interested in why I should move data/phone from the remote site from FE0 to E0. Currently that is the way it is connected (remote data/phone to FE0).

 

[dtrtel]

Confusion, my bad. I thought you had routers at the main site and the remote site, which would be closer to best practices. Need more info about the main site. Post router config and IP/Mask/gateway for the phone system controller.

--jeff

http://linkedin.com/in/JeffLynch

 

[shotgunsmitty]

No routers at the main site where this is located.

Call processor, phone system controller is on our 10.0.0.xxx network, along with everything else.