that's from Animal Farm. It has pretty good staying power, I must have read that for school more than twenty years ago dave h -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Cotts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 3:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: OT: Book lore - was RE: VLAN routing [7:13465] We'll smoke the codgers out now. Who knows the book that the below quote comes from. Hint: The speaker is a pig. > -----Original Message----- > From: Howard C. Berkowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 12:22 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: VLAN routing [7:13465] > > > >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. > > > Heretic! > > VLANs and switches good. Four legs good > Subnets and routers bad. Two legs bad > ALl topologies are equal, but All animals are equal, but > some are more equal than others. some are more equal tan others. > > > > >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 > > > More seriously, what is the problem you are trying to solve? What is > the basis of allocation to a VLAN? Would a group -- even a supernet > -- of subnets solve the problem? Or is this something where L2 VLAN > switches are more appropriate than routers? > Report misconduct > and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=13583&t=13465 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
