×

Warning message

  • Cisco Support Forums is in Read Only mode while the site is being migrated.
  • Cisco Support Forums is in Read Only mode while the site is being migrated.

How to configure backplane interfaces on SVC-CMM-6T1 module and SUP32?

Unanswered Question
Jun 26th, 2006
User Badges:

I have a hard time to understand the theory to configure the backplane interfaces on CMM-6T1 and SUP32. Here is the picture looks like:

- Sup32 is in slot 5 of 6509

- CMM-6T1 is in slot 1 of the same 6509

- Saw the output when show cdp nei on sup32:

G1/0 (sup) <--> G1/1 (CMM)

F1/5 (Sup) <--> F3/0 (CMM)

- When I configured all those four interfaces as layer3 interfaces, they can ping each other from either CMM or SUP.

- However, according to the link below, it is required to confiugred interfaces on sup as layer2 (switch acccess vlan). I did, CMM and SUP can not ping each other (I put G1/0 and F3/0 on CMM in the same vlan as interface vlan on Sup)


http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios123/123newft/123limit/123x/123xy8/gtcmm.htm#wp1193907


So my questions are:

1) should both G1/1 and F1/5 on SUP32 be configured as layer 2 interfaces to work properly with CMM?

2) What G1/0 and F3/0 on CMM for?

3) Which IP address on CMM is used as GW when we configure on CallManager with MGCP, G1/0 or F3/0? I thought at this time the answer is F3/0.


Please someone shed lights on this question. Thanks in advance!!

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 0 (0 ratings)
Loading.
meng_ted Tue, 06/27/2006 - 05:54
User Badges:

I saw the 'compatibility' issue mentioned in the linked document. However, I configured all those 4 backplane interfaces as layer3 interfaces (which is assigned the IP addresses to them), so that SUP32 and CMM-6T1 module can talk to each other over layer3. The result is everything is working fine so far. GW on the CMM has no problem to run MGCP backhaul with Callmanager, and any-to-any ping is working....

So I am really in doubt of this 'compatibility' issue. Cisco is verifying on this.

qnguyen8 Fri, 06/30/2006 - 16:10
User Badges:

I am having the same issue, did you assign then all /32 mask or did you make then /30 between the two gig ports and the FE ports?

meng_ted Wed, 07/05/2006 - 04:39
User Badges:

I assigned /30 IP addresses to pairs of interfaces.

qnguyen8 Wed, 07/05/2006 - 09:57
User Badges:

Thanks. Any to any connectivity is working, hopefully they register to the CMs. Was Cisco able to verify the compatability issue?

meng_ted Wed, 07/05/2006 - 11:56
User Badges:

Registering to CCM should be fine as long as the end-to-end IP connectivity is up. I had the GW-to-CCM registration done in my lab.

No, Cisco is still working on the verification. Before it is confirmed by Cisco that the 'compatability' issue doesn't exist, only Hybrid mode on 6500 is supported by Cisco TAC.

meng_ted Wed, 07/05/2006 - 11:57
User Badges:

Registering to CCM should be fine as long as the end-to-end IP connectivity is up. I had the GW-to-CCM registration done in my lab.

No, Cisco is still working on the verification. Before it is confirmed by Cisco that the 'compatability' issue doesn't exist, only Hybrid mode on 6500 is supported by Cisco TAC.

meng_ted Tue, 08/01/2006 - 06:57
User Badges:

New updates from Cisco:

The CMM is supported from 12.2(18)SXF4 on Sup32 with the recommended 12.4(7a) on CMM.Cisco is in the process of updating the CCO docs for Sup32 Native IOS support."

Actions

This Discussion