How are you identifying "voice traffic"? I'll probably have to think of a hack to make what you are asking for to work.
ea> On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 01:11:38PM -0400, Paul Stewart wrote: > > Hi folks... > > > > A while back (month or so) I posed a few questions about Policy Based > > Routing - thinking that was best way to conquer a new challenge... now > > I'm not so sure so looking for input. > > > > Here's the layout and what I want to accomplish.... > > > > Customer premise has a Cisco 3662 router. From the 3662 we have 2 > > TI's leaving and 2 Ethernet connections leaving towards a 6509 back in > > our data center. The 2 T1's go to a remote POP where they terminate > > on a Cisco 3640 router. The Cisco 3640 router connects to a Cisco > > 7206VXR which in turn connects via TLS back to the same 6509 in our > > data center. The ethernet connections leaving the customer site from > > the Cisco 3662 connect directly back to the 6509 with speeds of 6 Mb/s > > X 800Kb/s each. The T1's are full > > 1.544 Mb/s. > > > > So, one router at customer premise that needs to connect back to one > > router in our data center using 4 paths. The pair of T1's and the > > pair of ethernet ports should be "bonded" or load balanced. > > Traditionally this has been done via OSPF/CEF on our side of things. > > > > We want all VOIP traffic passing between the customer site and our > > data center to travel via the T1 circuits and all Internet traffic to > > go via the ethernet connections. > > > > I'm looking for the best routing protocol in this scenario that will > > allow me to use route-maps (or other alternatives) to identify source > > IP and destination IP subnets and apply priority. At the same time if > > the "far end" of each connection is unavailable then I want the traffic to > "fallover" > > to the other connections as a backup automatically. > > > > I had though at one point that OSPF would be ideal but I'm not aware > > of a way to apply a route-map to OSPF specifying only certain traffic > > prefers a certain path. We do this all the time with BGP so I though > > maybe iBGP could be applied here but I have the feeling that there is a > better solution.... > > > > Open to ideas and appreciate it... > > > > Paul > > > > _______________________________________________ > > cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
