Dear group members,
I have been asked to setup the following.... your help/ideas are most
welcome.....
/////////////(Internet)\\\\\\\\\\\
| |
|(100Mb) (100Mb)|
| |
| |
195.X.Y.Z1-- 3662-- 195.X.Y.Z3 195.X.Y.Z4-- 3662
| (Video Conf) (Video Conf)|
| |
195.X.Y.Z2 | 195.X.Y.Z5 |
PIX PIX
| |
| NAT NAT |
(10.1.0.0) (10.2.0.0)
| |
| |
2621-------------/______________2621
Redundant Link (2Mb)
Relevant details:
----------------------
A. I have been a given a full class C address range, which I have further
subnetted (/27) to create several subnets
195.X.Y.Z1, 195.X.Y.Z2, 195.X.Y.Z3, 195.X.Y.Z4 etc.
B. I have two 100Mb link to Internet with a few thousands of users/nodes
running all kind of OSs.
C. I will have to run BGP with 3662 routers. Inter site traffic will go
via 100 Mb link (through the Internet) using VPN. Should any one of the
100Mb link fail, intersite traffic to over using redundant 2 Mb link.
D. Inter site Video conferencing(VC) traffic over IP (H.323) will go via
100 Mb link (through the Internet). VC equipment is from Tandberg
My questions
--------------
1. Is it good to initiate VPN for site-to-site traffic using PIX
firewalls? Reason for not initiating VPN from 3662 are because of VC
traffic, not sure what effect will it have over VPN. Also I already have
the PIXs.
2. Is it recommeded/good design practice, to remove redundant links from
2621 routers and place them with 3662 routers? As there are only two main
sites, I thought wouldn't it be better to configure a static route between
two sites? Trying to keep the configuration simple...
ANY HELP/COMMENT/DISCUSSION WILL BE OF MUCH HELP.....
THANK YOU ALL IN ADVANCE!!!
Regards
Soumen
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59601&t=59601
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
