Interesting. Will look at that first. I have a simple set of CORs that give me what I need now. I'll have to see how I can modify them.
>From what I recall it was a strict "intersection" type relationship for things >to work. Brought back memories of algebra. --- Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A. Senior Analyst, Network Infrastructure Computing and Communications Services (CCS) University of Guelph 519-824-4120 Ext 56354 [email protected] www.uoguelph.ca/ccs Room 037, Animal Science and Nutrition Building Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1 -----Original Message----- From: NateCCIE [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 3:46 PM To: Lelio Fulgenzi; 'voyp list, cisco-voip' Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] using two 3945s for SRST during upgrades - how to create voip dial-peer statements without causing a loop? You can use COR to limit the inbound dial-peer on the router from seeing the outbound dial-peer that goes to the other SRST box. Easy peasy. -Nate -----Original Message----- From: cisco-voip [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 11:30 AM To: voyp list, cisco-voip ([email protected]) <[email protected]> Subject: [cisco-voip] using two 3945s for SRST during upgrades - how to create voip dial-peer statements without causing a loop? Hello folks, Question regarding voip dial-peers. I've had some experience, but my design skills are lacking, especially when it comes to something like I'm trying to do. Basically, I'd like to take advantage of our two 3945 routers and failover as many phones as possible. Problem is, it will be too difficult to fail them over in ranges. Can I create a dial-peer that says "5.... Pointer to router A" on router B, and "5.... Pointer to router B" on router A and not cause any routing loops? Is there a built in mechanism that prevents this? Is there something I need to configure? If it's too complicated and requires testing and time, I may have to forfeit the idea of using two routers and use just one and selectively pick those who failover. I mean, we have to do it anyways, since we have more than the two routers could handle. And it's a migration model that I might chose to use anyways, i.e. keep one router connected to the cluster and one not. Thoughts? Lelio --- Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A. Senior Analyst, Network Infrastructure Computing and Communications Services (CCS) University of Guelph 519-824-4120 Ext 56354 [email protected] www.uoguelph.ca/ccs Room 037, Animal Science and Nutrition Building Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1 _______________________________________________ cisco-voip mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
