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]