I guess missed a few details in the original email. :) If the question is how to move from a flat switched network to a subnetted routed network, then adding new VLAN might be a good idea (even though it's not always necessary; for example, if every switch is directly connected to a router then every switch can handle one subnet with just one VLAN).
Just for renumbering, however, I think using secondary addresses is a much better solution than moving hosts to another vlan (and then removing the old vlan). Vlans are not any easier to deal with than secondary addresses, and "both 10/16 and 11/8 floating around on the same VLAN" is completely irrelevant, IMHO. Thanks, Zsombor At 02:36 PM 7/15/2003 -0400, Reimer, Fred wrote: >">As suggested before creating another vlan would be more ideal. > >Why would it be more ideal?" > >Because it is cleaner. With the proposed solution you would be dealing with >secondary addresses, traffic for both 10/16 and 11/8 floating around on the >same VLAN, etc. > > Besides, it sounds like the network is "flat" now, with an >11/8 subnet (if you can call that a subnet). They are moving to a 10/16 >address space, that is subnetted. > > I'd assume a logical breakout like > >10.0.2.0/23 >10.0.4.0/23 >10.0.6.0/23 > >etc, based on geographic location (separate subnet per IDF or floor). It >would be pretty hard to do that all on one VLAN... So you are going to be >moving 2000 PC's that are all in one VLAN to a bunch of separate VLANs. > >This is assuming a lot, but it's not like we were sent a Visio diagram of >the existing and planned network... > >Fred Reimer - CCNA > > >Eclipsys Corporation, 200 Ashford Center North, Atlanta, GA 30338 >Phone: 404-847-5177 Cell: 770-490-3071 Pager: 888-260-2050 > > >NOTICE; This email contains confidential or proprietary information which >may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the named recipient(s). >If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected the email, please >notify the author by replying to this message. If you are not the named >recipient, you are not authorized to use, disclose, distribute, copy, print >or rely on this email, and should immediately delete it from your computer. > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Zsombor Papp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 12:55 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: switch default gateway question [7:72288] > >At 05:26 PM 7/15/2003 +0100, gab.seun jones.ewulomi wrote: > >As suggested before creating another vlan would be more ideal. > >Why would it be more ideal? > > >Yes agreed we know that floating statics are used when you have multiple > >ways to the same destination in which you can load balnace or use as a >backup. > >Floating statics can be used only for backup, not for load balancing. > > > In which if im correct in the case of load balancing you can load > > balance traffic to the same destinating but using differnt paths or links > >If you want to have load balancing, then you better start looking into >dynamic routing. > >Thanks, > >Zsombor > > > >Thanks Zsombor > > > >regards, > >seun > > > > > >>From: Zsombor Papp > >>To: "gab S.E jones" > >>CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Subject: Re: switch default gateway question [7:72288] > >>Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:01:06 -0700 > >> > >>If you mean a L2 device when you say "switch", then those don't forward > >>packets from the PCs based on default gateway. If this is news to you, > >>then I am a bit worried about the outcome of this renumbering exercise... >:) > >> > >>Anyway, I think you need to configure the secondary IP addresses only on > >>the interfaces which face PCs (I would configure the *old* address as > >>secondary). Every other interface can be readdressed in one step, one > >>network segment at a time, along with the corresponding static routes > >>(will be fun... have you thought about dynamic routing? :). I also don't > >>think you need *floating* static routes, just an ordinary static route > >>pointing to the new subnets (you need floating static routes when you > >>have multiple ways to the same destination, not when you have two > >>destinations at the end of the same way). When you set up all this, you > >>can start moving the hosts (ie. PCs *and* the switches) to the new > >>subnets, and that's about it. > >> > >>Thanks, > >> > >>Zsombor > >> > >>At 09:47 AM 7/15/2003 +0000, gab S.E jones wrote: > >>>Basically I want to know how best to approach the situation. Our network >is > >>>all statically mapped no dynamic routing > >>> > >>>our switches(4506,3550,6509) are going to be changed to a different >address > >>>range. the switches can accept more than one default gateway. > >>>The core routers addresses has to be changed to the same subnet as the > >>>switches soon > >>> > >>>1)the switch old ip address is on a 11/8 address pointing to the core > >>>router(interface) with a 11/8 address > >>>2)now the switch addresses are being changed to a 10/16(subnetted) >address > >>>and the default gateway has to point to the core with a 10/16 address as > >>>well > >>> > >>>Myu approach was to > >>> > >>>1)configure the swith with another default pointing to a 10/16 > >>>2)configure a secondary interface on the core with a 10/16 address > >>>3)the other core routers connected to this core will be also given a > >>>secondary of 10/16 address > >>>4)then on the core routers put floating statics for all our original >routes > >>>to point to the default GW 10/16 addresses > >>> > >>>I presume that because the swithes now have to defalt GW statements that >the > >>>swith will automatically send packest for pc's of 10 and 11 addresses. >While > >>>we slowly migrate all our lan devices to the new 10/16 GW > >>> > >>>5)will start gradually changing the lan devices to start pointing to the > >>>10/16 GW > >>> > >>>Please correct me if im thinking of this the wrong way. > >>> > >>>Any advice will be greatly appreciated > >>> > >>>My apologies if I didnt explain myself properly > >>> > >>>regards, > >>>seun > >_________________________________________________________________ > >Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends > >http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72350&t=72288 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
