yes MT
For the most part I couldnt see a time I would want to bridge the ports.
Just something simple like saying VLAN ID 255 is reserved on the network
for the router to router OSPF communications. the third octet of the VLAN
IDs is always 255 so it would keep it uniform for remembering. The 4th
octet is our site ID, I could use a combination of site IDs to each link,
but then you run into a monkey trying to figure out which id is first and
which is second, then they get confused and start clicking things, then it
becomes a click orgy. next thing you know theyre at the command line with a
browser window open googling things to type, then I end up with router
herpes.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On a MT?
>
> AFAIK, the VLANs on one port are not connected to the VLANs on another
> port. In other words, each VLAN is like a new port.
>
> You could then bridge ether1-VLANxyz to ether2-VLANxyz if you were so
> inclined.
>
> bp
> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>
>
> On 7/6/2015 9:12 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:
>
> Will I break the internet of things of I reuse the same vlan ID on
> multiple ports
>
> This is solely for simplified deployment of site routers since it turns
> out I need my OSPF subnets on vlans so I dont have to keep track of a
> billion vlan IDs as well as a billion /30s
>
> The ports would not be bridged, just share a VLAN ID
>
> I assume this is a big No No, more curious on the impact of doing so
>
> --
> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your
> team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>
>
>
--
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
