Bridge or Tunnel or NAT ?

[nawas]

I have design constraint where I have to run same subnet between two locations.

Site A and B connected via T1 will have hosts in network 1.1.1.0/24 which will need to talk to each other locally and over T1. Routers connected to Site A and site B will also need to talk to the IP network via its another interface. I know I can do it via transparent bridge.I'm trying to find the best option. Can I use Tunnel or NAT will work better? Please advice.

Thanks.

[ekiriakos]

You can use integrated routing and bridging. See link

http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122cgcr/fibm_c/bcfpart1/bcftb.htm

HTH

E.

[nawas]

HI

what if I want to use NAT or Tunnel, do you think it will be a better option or the worse?

Please share.

Thanks.

[ekiriakos]

Yes you can use nat. I guess u can treat them as overlapping networks. As for tunelling if supported on your routers l2tp v3 is an option see link:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps1829/products_feature_guide09186a008016108b.html#wp1085956.

I believe all three options will work but in my opinion in such a simple topology the easiest is irb.