Why does the network on the other side of the routers need to be in the
same VLAN? Why don't you make it a different VLAN and a different IP subnet?
A VLAN is an IP subnet. Sure, Cisco and other vendors make it sound like
VLANs are something more mysterious, but essentially, a VLAN is an IP subnet.
So you need routing on those routers.
But what you have described is a discontiguous subnet. This is usually not
a good idea but it could work if you use static routes or a classless
routing protocol and tinker with the prefix boundary.
But, it's probably a better idea to use a different design where the subnet
is not separated by multiple routers. A subnet (VLAN) separated by switches
is OK, but a subnet separated by routers is usually avoided. You could use
bridging on the routers, but seems like even more of a kludge.
If I'm missing something, please let me know. Thanks.
Priscilla
At 03:35 AM 7/24/01, SolutionFinder SolutionFinder wrote:
>Hello colleagues, I have a question regarding the configuration of the
>routing device when a VLAN is separated by two or more routers. Do I have
>to add an interface for the respective VLAN on every router ? Vlan 20
>--> Router A --> Router B --> Router C --> Vlan 20 Do all three routers
>need the 'interface VLAN 20' statement in their configurations ? Thanks
>for your help in advance. Regards, Hans
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
________________________
Priscilla Oppenheimer
http://www.priscilla.com
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=13524&t=13465
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
