I beg to differ slightly on the concept of VLANS. A VLAN, as I'm sure you
know, is a broadcast domain and makes no assumption of nor has any
dependance upon layer three protocols. However, the difference in answers
between how to extend a protocol independent broadcast domain vs an IP
broadcast domain over an IP network are subtle and likely moot in this case.
The design choices that could enable this technically challenged network
would include, as you point out, subneting the IP network such that the
single subnet becomes two and enabling routing over the IP intermediary
network, or, bridging the subnet across the IP network using a tunneling
technique in which case the intermediary network becomes transparent to the
subnet. The first case is likely the most plausible, though the original
poster has not indicated that it is indeed IP that needs the services of
this bridged network.
I think the original poster needs to ask him or her self Howard's cardinal
question "What problem am I trying to solve?" likely yielding a need to
redesign toward a more simple, and functional design as you suggest :)
Pete
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 7/24/2001 at 12:05 PM Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote:
>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=13543&t=13465
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
