Chuck and C0., The policy may be in place in order to curtail some of the innate security flaws that VLANS allow for in network architectures. I have document (somewhere on this laptop), that explains the pros/cons of utilizing VLANs specifically from a Secure Architecture perspective. If anyone is interested, let me know and I will forward it to you.
Regards, Will Gragido -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Chuck Larrieu Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 9:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: EtherChannel alternatives(??) [7:33187] not commenting on the policy itself, but I'm wondering if you can explain why the anti-vlan policy exists? In all sincerity, I am curious as to the thought process. the "why" is generally more educational than the "what" Thanks Chuck ""John McCartney"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hi all, > > I have a question regarding EtherChannel. Is there an alternative to > EtherChannel that will give aggregation speeds that can be implemented on > 6509's. The reason I can't use EtherChannel is that our corp policy forbids > VLAN's so hence no EtherChannel. > > I have a customer who is currently on one 100MB F/E port and soon to be 3 > (all using redundancy --HSPR) and they wanted to know if there is a way to > aggregate the ports? The first thing I thought of was EtherChannel.... > > Any help is appreciated. > > Have a great weekend and GO EAGLES!!!!! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=33207&t=33187 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
