VLANs - Voice and New IP schema - Various HP/Aruba switches

[texwilson47]

Good morning!

I inherited a very small network with a very poor design.  We are moving to a new location in less than a year and I will be designing a more structured network for the new building but we are a 24-hour shop and I cannot get the downtime to change the network to accommodate for a new IP subnet for the users (we have outgrown the Class C we have and the implementation of a new VOIP solution.  There is no consistency with this setup and it appears they just added switches where they could as they grew.  I have finally mapped out the switches that all the users attach too and it is not pretty.  I need to send two VLANs to all the switches - one for the new user production subnet (191.168.100.0/22) and one for the Voice service (10.15.0.0/16).  I believe I will have to tag the uplink to other switches like in the example below:

vlan 15
name "Corp. Voice"
ip address 10.15.0.1 255.255.0.0
ip helper-address 192.168.100.36

tagged 2, 13, 14, 20, 22, 23
exit

vlan 191
name "Corp. Users"
ip address 191.168.100.1 255.255.252.0
ip helper-address 192.168.100.36

tagged 2, 13, 14, 20, 22, 23
exit

I put in the IP helper-address for the DHCP server just in case.  The problem is I have daisy-chained switches... (Example - from this core switch at port 23, there is another switch that has 4 more switches from it at ports 14, 22, 23, 24.

I am needing to get both the new user subnet and the Voice subnet to each user.  Is this method the correct method since there are no like ports on these switches since I have 1820s, 2930 2920, 2510G, Aruba 2930F HPE 2610 - so I doubt trunking is in but it may work... Just not sure what model can support it or not.  

Looking for ideas...

Also the ports on the various switches that have users/phones I will be placing the "untagged + ports" in each switch where they are relevant.  The example is from the core switch and there are no users or phones on it.

Any suggestions are welcome.

[-Alex-]

Hello texwilson47,

It seems fine. The tagging is fine you just need to have the same vlans created on the switches and make sure that on the uplinks between switches you keep them tagged.

For the ports configuration depends on the phone configuration - in a lot of cases phone traffic is tagged, pc untagged.

Tagging is significant to the port to keep the traffic in the proper vlan. All of the switches you mentioned support vlans and tagging is not a problem but is needed in fact. Your approach seems correct.
Hope this helps!

[texwilson47]

Thanks for the input.  I need to research more on the ports for the phones being tagged.. the problem is the port for the voice will also be the same port for the new Corpo User IP has to go to the PC (daisy-chaining the PC from the VoIP phone)... so is that why tagged is the better way to go or untagging?

[-Alex-]

Hello texwilson47,

Following is an example for using voice vlan and setting on the port for some aruba switches to automatically recognise phones and set the tagged traffic for the phone and untagged for the PC:

VoIP_Deployment_on_ArubaOS-Switch.pdf (higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com)

Hope this helps!

[texwilson47]

So this would apply to VoIP phones that are on Non-POE switches and will have a daisy-chained PC from the phone?  IE two devices to the same port.

[texwilson47]

Labeling the ports as tagged instead of untagged for the VoIP device and the PC on the same port that is?

[-Alex-]

Hello texwilson47,

It should work the same no matter if it is PoE port or not.

Usually the phones have small switch on them most of the phones are working as described in the document. They tag their voice traffic and leave untagged the PC traffic.

You may check the switch settings under a port where there is phone with a PC already.

Usually voice vlan is tagged and PC vlan is untagged.