Comments on: Network link redundancy using BVI

By: Darko Juric

Darko Juric — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:16:19 +0000

Thanks Scott for sharing this with us! It is unfortunate that Cisco didn’t find necessary to support “interface Port-channel” on VG224s and doesn’t make available redundant configuration recommendation.

I opened Cisco TAC case for VG224 redundant configuration recommendation and what assigned engineer sent me is to either laugh or feel really disappointed with lack of expertise and even general routing/switching knowledge. I applied your solution and worked like a charm. My only concern was possible L2 loop or as in previous comment mentioned MAC address flapping when connecting both Ethernet interfaces to switch ports in the same VLAN.

What I just checked and found is that STP on VG224 is blocking one of the links:

Port 4 (FastEthernet0/0) of Bridge group 1 is forwarding
Port 5 (FastEthernet0/1) of Bridge group 1 is blocking

Since the redundancy not bandwidth was the objective this is still better than single link.

cheers,
darko

By: Hamid Hashemi

Hamid Hashemi — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:16:14 +0000

I did the same scenario and I had a problem flapping the mac on the switch. then I forced the specify the MAC of the BVI interface manually to something else (which is not as same as both ethernet interfaces) and it works fine now.

By: CLRGomes

CLRGomes — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 13:05:14 +0000

Hello, I have already worked with this feature, BVI, and it works very fine. I advise you to adjust some timers to get better results in the convergence.

Thanks,

CLRGomes