bridge groups BVI not supported?

[Fotiosmark]

I have a cisco 886 and I am trying to configure bridge groups on interface.

Anyone knows why I get the following?

Router(config-if)#bridge-group 1
FastEthernet0 does not support bridging

Does it have to be Layer 3 interface to put it under Bridge Group?

Is there a way to configure redundancy on such a device?

Thanks

[Georg Pauwen]

Hello,

as far as I recall, FastEthernet0-3 are switchports, and FastEthernet4 can be configured as a routed port. If you want to configure bridging, create a Vlan interface and use that for bridging.

That said, when you say redundancy, what are you trying to achieve ?

[Fotiosmark]

well, I want to connect to interfaces from router 886 to stacked switches.
I would create BVI if it was supported but its not.
So basicaly, I will put my layer 3 on a vlan, and connect the 886 to the switches, making 1 port as blocked from stp, so if one cable goes down the other will go up.
BVI basically would make both links work. But it not achivable in my case as it seems

[Georg Pauwen]

Hello,

connect the switches to either of the FastEthernet0-3 ports and configure all links as trunks.

I am not clear on what the BVI is needed for...maybe you can post a schematic drawing of what your setup should look like ?

[Fotiosmark]

Thank you for the fast Replies.
Well, it's a basic setup, 1 router, 2switches SG300 stacked. I was thinking of connecting the 886 Fa0 to Stack1 and Fa1 to Stack2 for redundancy.
I thought through BVIs both links would forward. If I connect the interfaces as it is as trunk, wouldn't the STP block 1 of the ports?
I thought If I could configure it as bridge groups, both interfaces would be in forward state.

[Georg Pauwen]

Hello,

you are right, if you have redundant links, STP would block one of the ports. 

If you want to use both links at the same time, configure a port channel.

[Fotiosmark]

Correct, only issue 887 series doesn't support Port-Channels...So I have no choice but to connect it as it is and configure it as spanning tree uplinkfast for fast convergence. :(

[Georg Pauwen · Accepted solution]

Hello,

the 800 routers are not really meant for anything else than small office connectivity and simple switch connectivity I guess...

That said, dual redundant trunks sound like a good way to provide at least basic redundancy...