That sounds like an excellent strategy. There should be no problem in skipping vlan numbers. Just keep in mind that according to Cisco you want to keep VLAN 1 as your management VLAN. HTH, Casey >From: "Jared Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: "Jared Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Groupstudy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: VLAN design >Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 19:05:36 -0400 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Received: from [208.32.175.78] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id >MHotMailBB92949500D5D821EEDCD020AF4E0B4221; Wed Sep 20 16:36:53 2000 >Received: from localhost (mail@localhost)by groupstudy.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) >with SMTP id TAA26307;Wed, 20 Sep 2000 19:08:01 -0400 >Received: by groupstudy.com (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 20 Sep 2000 19:00:19 >-0400 >Received: (from listserver@localhost)by groupstudy.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id >TAA25794GroupStudy Mailer; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 19:00:19 -0400 >Received: from c000.snv.cp.net (c000-h007.c000.snv.cp.net >[209.228.32.71])by groupstudy.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id >TAA25776GroupStudy Mailer; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 19:00:17 -0400 >Received: (cpmta 28643 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2000 15:56:58 -0700 >Received: from cc24538-c.chmbl1.ga.home.com (HELO jareddesktop) >(24.9.67.101) by smtp.carter.net (209.228.32.71) with SMTP; 20 Sep 2000 >15:56:58 -0700 >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Sep 20 16:40:02 2000 >X-Sent: 20 Sep 2000 22:56:58 GMT >Message-ID: <016501c02357$49dc5fc0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >X-Priority: 3 >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Group- > >When implementing new VLANs, I like to use some sort of logic when >assigning the numbers. For example, if a customer was assigning one VLAN >per wiring closet, and the customer has 4 floors, and one closet on each >floor, I would use VLANs 11, 21, 31 and 41. The first digit in the number >represents the floor, and the second digit represents the closet number. >If there were multiple closets on a floor, I would use 42 and 43, etc. > >This leaves VLANs 32-40 unassigned. Is there any problem with this? I >cannot see one, but I thought I would check. > >This wouldn't really work if they were implementing VLANs to group users >based on common job function for example, and I understand that. > >Thanks, >Jared _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. **NOTE: New CCNA/CCDA List has been formed. For more information go to http://www.groupstudy.com/list/Associates.html _________________________________ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
