3 Replies Latest reply on Jul 11, 2014 10:17 AM by noor

    NetVanta 3200 Branch Office VoIP connection(s)

    ranweb New Member
    ranweb Jun 4, 2014 11:10 PM

      In a prior (similar) posting, I had setup two NetVAnta 3200 router connecting my production network to a branch office via a T1.  I was able to use those setting to implement another T1 connection to another branch office. Thank you 'jayh' for your assistance.

       

      Currently, I'm reviewing the setting of the two routers in the hopes of establishing a VoIP system at the branch office to it will tie into our VoIP system in the main production network. As before, In our production network, our VoIP system is on a separate Vlan(200) with the ip scope of 10.200.1.0/24.  I'm trying to figure out how the phone and VoIP server on the branch office side can talk to the production network via the Vlan 200

       

      I have the following setup:

       

      Production Network: 10.20.0.0/16 - A SIDE

      Branch Office Network: 172.22.1.0/24 - B SIDE

       

      Router (A-Side)

      eth0/1: 10.20.15.46/16

      ppp1 10.10.10.1/30

       

      A Side Routing Table
      A Side.gif

       

      Router (B-Side)

      eth0/1: 172.22.1.0/24

      ppp1; 10.10.10.2/30

      B Side.gif

       

      As before, any assistance would be greatly appreciated!

       

      Randy Webster

        • Re: NetVanta 3200 Branch Office VoIP connection(s)
          ranweb New Member
          ranweb Jun 5, 2014 6:32 AM (in response to ranweb)

          Additional note... I'm attempting to configure the T1 to pass both data and voice communication

          • Re: NetVanta 3200 Branch Office VoIP connection(s)
            jayh Hall_of_Fame
            jayh Jun 5, 2014 3:57 PM (in response to ranweb)

            We use frame-relay encapsulation on T1 links to carry different classes of traffic. 


            It's a bit tricky but essentially frame-relay allows you to have multiple virtual circuits on the same physical T1.  One virtual circuit will carry your data traffic and the other can carry voice.  So, you'll have a subinterface on the T1 for your existing data, and a second with a different identifier (called DLCI) for the voice.  Frame-relay configuration is a bit more complex than PPP or HDLC, and you'll have to make one end DCE and the other DTE, the circuits have a kind of gender relationship.

             

            Normally I would just bridge the voice traffic if it's only supporting a few phones. Unfortunately the last time I checked you can't assign a subinterface to a bridge group (Please fix this, Adtran folks!)


            So you could put the voice in a different VRF and route a new voice subnet to the remote side.  Both the VLAN subinterfaces at both ends and the frame-relay subinterfaces would need to be in the new VRF and you'll need to put appropriate routing in place as well as QoS.

             

            Alternatively you might be able to use policy routing on both sides and keep the T1 with its present configuration, or even a tunnel or VPN.

             

            3200 series are kind of lightweight so I don't know if they support policy routing, tunnel interfaces, and/or VRF so that might limit your choices.  TA900 series support these.

            1 of 1 people found this helpful
              • Re: NetVanta 3200 Branch Office VoIP connection(s)
                Employee
                noor Jul 11, 2014 10:17 AM (in response to jayh)

                ranweb -

                I went ahead and flagged this post as "Assumed Answered". If any of the responses on this thread assisted you, please mark them as Correct or Helpful as the case may be with the applicable buttons. This will make them visible and help other members of the community find solutions more easily. If you have any additional information on this that others may benefit from, please come back to this post to provide an update. If you still need assistance, we would be more than happy to continue working with you on this - just let us know in a reply.

                 

                Thanks,

                Noor