I decided to use the last octet of the connecting subnet ID, it adds another layer of complexity, but probably avoids some future disaster. Ill probably regret doing this down the road when we his 723 million customers
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Shayne Lebrun <sleb...@muskoka.com> wrote: > On Mikrotik, if you put vlan 40, say, on interface 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, but > don’t actually bridge any of them together, or trunk them on layer 2, > they’ll never see each other. > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Bill Prince > *Sent:* Monday, July 6, 2015 12:20 PM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] reusing vlan IDs > > > > 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.
