I was just looking at our firewall as the routing point possibly, next I'll look at the switches which do have routing capabilities. Switches are probably the logical place to do this. Are you suggesting leave the sipx port to be an access port on our voice vlan (210 for us)? So the route should be able to route between the two networks regardless of vlans? Just want to clarify here.
Thanks! Andrew > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas McConnell [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 1:02 PM > To: Josh Patten > Cc: Andrew Cotter; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [sipx-users] Vlan question > > I think your confusing it a little, the vlan problem was > someth8ing you injected, switch it back to access and do what > Josh suggested > > Josh Patten wrote: > > VLANs are separate networks, just on the same physical hardware. If > > one of your networks doesn't know a route to the other > network how are > > they supposed to communicate? > > > > Josh Patten > > Assistant Network Administrator > > Brazos County IT Dept. > > (979) 361-4676 > > > > > > On 1/25/2010 11:51 AM, Andrew Cotter wrote: > > > >> We can add the route, but won't the vlan issue also stop me from > >> gaining access? > >> > >> Andrew > >> > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Josh Patten [mailto:[email protected]] > >>> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 12:46 PM > >>> To: Andrew Cotter > >>> Cc: [email protected] > >>> Subject: Re: [sipx-users] Vlan question > >>> > >>> Do you have any routing going on between those subnets? > If not, that > >>> might be a good place to start. If those switches have routing > >>> capabilities built in then I would utilize them. > >>> > >>> Josh Patten > >>> Assistant Network Administrator > >>> Brazos County IT Dept. > >>> (979) 361-4676 > >>> > >>> > >>> On 1/25/2010 11:40 AM, Andrew Cotter wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> Matt - Congrats on the success! > >>>> > >>>> Our system is up and running, but we have an issue with > >>>> > >>>> > >>> vlans it looks like. > >>> > >>> > >>>> Any suggested deployment configurations/examples would be > >>>> > >>>> > >>> great when > >>> > >>> > >>>> it comes to networks. Sorry now if this is a dumb question! > >>>> > >>>> Are layout is as follows: > >>>> > >>>> Data network = 10.0.0.0/17 > >>>> Data vlan = 10 > >>>> Voice network = 172.21.210.0/24 > >>>> Voice vlan = 210 > >>>> > >>>> The Cisco 7940/60 phones have the voice vlan hard coded in > >>>> > >>>> > >>> them to 210 > >>> > >>> > >>>> which means the untagged data coming from the second > port on their > >>>> switch will put traffic on the data (10) vlan. Switch > ports with > >>>> phones are specified as trunk ports with data (10) being > >>>> > >>>> > >>> the native vlan and voice (210) also added. > >>> > >>> > >>>> This works for phones and subsequently connected computers > >>>> > >>>> > >>> correctly. > >>> > >>> > >>>> The issue we are having is the port on the switch where > >>>> > >>>> > >>> sipx connects. > >>> > >>> > >>>> The port is currently an access port which means it has > >>>> > >>>> > >>> only the voice > >>> > >>> > >>>> vlan on it and that allows the phones to connect > properly, but we > >>>> still have an issue with being able to access the web > >>>> > >>>> > >>> interface. Not > >>> > >>> > >>>> a vlan guru here so I am struggling on what to do. The > >>>> > >>>> > >>> switches are > >>> > >>> > >>>> Juniper EX4200 series and they have the option of tagging > >>>> > >>>> > >>> the native > >>> > >>> > >>>> vlan and then additional vlans if the port is a trunk port > >>>> > >>>> > >>> vs. an access port. > >>> > >>> > >>>> If we were to specify the port as trunk port with the > >>>> > >>>> > >>> native vlan as > >>> > >>> > >>>> the voice vlan (210) and add additional vlans of data (10), > >>>> > >>>> > >>> will that > >>> > >>> > >>>> probably work? The opposite way around (native=data) cuts off > >>>> communications between phone and sipx. > >>>> > >>>> Any suggestions here would be much appreciated. Did I > >>>> > >>>> > >>> deploy this in > >>> > >>> > >>>> a totally unusual way? I was modeling the network off of > >>>> > >>>> > >>> the way the > >>> > >>> > >>>> old Cisco callmanager (v 4.2) was setup. > >>>> > >>>> Everyone's feedback thus far has been very helpful! > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> > >>>> Andrew > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> sipx-users mailing list [email protected] List > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Archive: > >>> > >>> > >>>> http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users > >>>> Unsubscribe: > http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-users > >>>> sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > sipx-users mailing list [email protected] List > Archive: > > http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users > > Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-users > > sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/ > > > _______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-users sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/
