Tunnels cannot be part of a bridge-group
""Someone"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Just because the traffic can't be routed doesn't mean the network can't be. > Give this a thought: > > 1) Create a loopback interface on each router and assign IP addresses to the > loopbacks. > 2) Give the serial interfaces on the routers IP addresses as well. > 3) Build a tunnel using the loopbacks as endpoints > 4) Put the tunnel and the ethernet interfaces in the same bridge-group > 5) Use floating statics to move the traffic across your preferred link > unless the link goes down. > > This is a pretty generic solution. There may be something better depending > on your situation...more details? > > HTH > -B > > Robert LaGrasse > CCIE #5044 (R/S & ISP/Dial) > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ""Dan Faulk"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Have an idea to solve a problem at work and would like to see if any of > you > > see a problem with this rather simplistic solution. No routing can occur > due > > to the nature of the traffic. T1s between the 1720s which are configured > "no > > ip routing" and to bridge the traffic from E0 to S0, 1720 a and b to have > a > > higher priority assigned for STP as that is the normally desired path to > the > > remote location. Was going to use HSRP but don't think that works when no > ip > > routing is configured and that protocol leaves something to be desired > when > > dealing with wans. Ideas? > > > > _____1720a----------1720b_____ > > __ 1912____| |__1912__ > > |____1720c----------1720d_____| Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=25170&t=25044 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
