Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Join Customer Connection to register!
Michael Meyer

RSPAN, SPAN on same switch

Hi All

I have two switches (2960S's) both with IP Phones on VLAN100

We need to monitor voice traffic via a monitor port on SW1 of all VLAN100 traffic on both switches.

The following is what we have configured, but we cannot see VLAN100 traffic on SW1


monitor session 2 source vlan 100

monitor session 2 destination remote vlan 999


monitor session 1 source vlan 100

monitor session 1 destination remote vlan 999

monitor session 2 destination interface Fa0/19

monitor session 2 source remote vlan 999

According to Cisco doco you cannot have a SPAN and RSPAN on the same session, however since these are two sessions on SW1, I would have thought it to be OK.

Any thoughts on how to achieve this?



Cisco Employee

Hello Mike-

I had ran into this issue before where I needed the voice traffic captured and sent to a call-recording server. Unfortunately, the setup is not supported on the switch that you are using. You can only accomplish this on some of the higher end switches such as the Cat6500. You will either have to get a better/more expensive switch or if this is for call recording see if they call recording solution along with you PBX would support SIP call-forking

Here is a snip-it directly from the config guide for 2960s

The switch does not support a combination of local SPAN and RSPAN in a single session. That is,

an RSPAN source session cannot have a local destination port, an RSPAN destination session cannot

have a local source port, and an RSPAN destination session and an RSPAN source session that are

using the same RSPAN VLAN cannot run on the same switch stack

Thank you for rating!

I have the same problem, but I'm doing it on a Catalyst 4500 switch, is this switch compatible with this configuration?, because I can not see the traffic on the same switch.




Did the destination port configured as access port?

Yes the span port is an access port on vlan 999

That wording is so ambuguious, I am not a lawyer and feel I need to be to be sure of that statement

Back in the days I even had a TAC case opened on this because I could not get it to work on my 3750s in a remote office while it perfectly worked in the HQ where we used 6500s Nevertheless, please do let me know if you find a workaround as I would be interested to know