Great Points. I've decided to check out wireless for the corporate stuff and the wired network for the lab/test. It sounds better than being a cable jockey :-) Thanks for all the insights.
Collin ""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > The multi-VLAN feature that Leigh Anne mentioned might solve your problem. > The Cisco switch port could be associated with two VLANs that way. You > didn't say which switch you have, and this feature may not be available on > all Cisco switches, though. > > Assuming that you don't want to upgrade the little switch to one that does > 802.1Q or ISL, another somewhat radical fix to the problem might be to not > use VLANs. My philosophy is that once VLANs get to the point of causing > more problems then they fix, I eliminate them. ;-) > > One of the main things VLANs were supposed to fix was excessive broadcasts > causing too many CPU interruptions on numerous workstations in a large, > flat, switched network. > > Lately I have taken to making the controversial statement that this problem > doesn't exist on many modern networks. These days workstations have > amazingly fast CPUs. They are not bogged down by processing broadcasts. > Also, as we eliminate older "desktop" protocols such as AppleTalk and IPX, > what is still sending broadcasts? An ARP here or there is not a big > problem. And ARPs don't actually happen that often. A PC keeps the > data-link-layer address of its default gateway and other communication > partners for a long time. > > Also, a lot of PC NICs used to be stupid about multicasts and interrupt the > CPU for irrelevant multicasts for which the PC was not registered to > listen. I bet that bug has been fixed by now. > > VLANs have other benefits (security, dividing up management and > administrative domains, etc.) But if broadcasts are the issue, one should > ask: > > Which protocol send broadcasts and how often? > How fast are the CPUs? > > And that is my latest harangue against my least favorite LAN technology > (VLANs!) > > Priscilla > > At 09:52 AM 10/24/01, NetEng wrote: > >Thanks for the replies. The two MAC addresses would come from the two PC's > >in an office. The would both connect in to a hub and then the hub would > >uplink to the cisco switch. I need one pc in VLAN1 and one pc in VLAN2, from > >what you and Dennis stated this will not work. I appreciate the comments > >though. > > > >Collin > > > >""Leigh Anne Chisholm"" wrote in message > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > Actually, that's not correct. The original specification for VLANs from > > > what I understand mandates that only one VLAN can be assigned to a port, > >but > > > manufacturers such as 3COM decided to do otherwise and support multiple > > > VLANs per port. Cisco responded by creating (on certain switches such as > > > the Catalyst 2900XL) an administrator to configure a port to be a member > >of > > > more than one VLAN at a time when using a membership mode known as > > > "Multi-VLAN". A Multi-VLAN port can belong to up to 250 VLANs; the actual > > > number of VLANs to which the port can belong depends on the capability of > > > the switch itself. Although the concept is similar, this membership mode > >is > > > different than "trunking". The caveat to this feature is that the > > > Multi-VLAN membership mode cannot be configured on a switch if one or > more > > > ports on the switch have been configured to trunk. > > > > > > For more information on this feature, search Cisco's website using the > > > keyword phrase "switchport multi". > > > > > > As for answering NetEng's question--I can't quite determine where > multiple > > > MAC addresses share the same switch port. Could you identify which > switch > > > that is? > > > > > > > > > -- Leigh Anne > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > > > Dennis > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 3:48 PM > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: Re: MAC address and VLANs [7:23950] > > > > > > > > > > > > Cisco will recognize multiple macs on a single port but they must > > > > all be in > > > > the same vlan. Vlan assignment is per port. Your other option > > > > would be to > > > > replace the non cisco hub with a cisco switch which is trunked to the > >main > > > > switch. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > -=Repy to group only... no personal=- > > > > > > > > ""NetEng"" wrote in message > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > > Here's my situtation. I have a corporate PC with an IP address of > > > > 10.10.x.x > > > > > and in the same office (and same physical network) another > > > > device with an > > > > IP > > > > > address of 192.168.100.x Both devices are connected to a small > > > > hub/switch > > > > > which in turn is connected to a cisco switch. Can I have the > > > > 10.10.x.x be > > > > > apart of one vlan and the 192.168.100.x be a member of another or the > > > > > default vlan? Can cisco switches recognize multiple MAC addresses on > a > > > > > single switch port (if so, how many?) and be smart enough to know > >which > > > > vlan > > > > > which MAC address belongs to? This would save me hours (otherwise I > >have > > > > to > > > > > run cable for connections to our corporate network and > > > > connections to our > > > > > test network in every cube :-( ). TIA > > > > > > > > > > PS I understand the best way to do this would be to connect each > >device > > > > into > > > > > the cisco switch, but I only have a single cable run to each > >cube/office > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (corporate pc)10.10.x.x > > > > > | > > > > > PC PC (test network) 192.168.100.x > > > > > | | > > > > > \ / > > > > > \ / > > > > > SWITCH/HUB (non-cisco) > > > > > | > > > > > | > > > > > CISCO SWITCH > > > > > VLANs > > > > > -------- ---------- > > > > > | | | | > > > > > | corp | | test | > > > > > -------- ----------- > ________________________ > > Priscilla Oppenheimer > http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=24047&t=23950 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
