If everyone just goes to the internet, it'll work. But if you've got one or
more servers internally, I'd be real afraid of trunking on a 10 mb interface.
You'll reduce your broadcasts, but I think performance will suffer horribly
crossing the router. Since you've run out of addresses on a /24, I assume
you've got a couple hundred devices. Personally I'd just move the mask back
one or 2 bits, making it a /22 or /23, and using the additional 1.0 or 1,2,
and 3.0 subnets. There's things you can do to almost all OSs to reduce
broadcasts. How many broadcasts are you seeing per second? If it's no more
than 20 on average, I wouldn't even worry about it.
Chuck Church
CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE
>The customer has been using 192.168.168.0/24 in one small flat LAN. He
>has run out of these addresses and is being hit by performance issues
>related to broadcasts.
>He wants to implement subnets and VLANs:
>VLAN 100 192.168.168.0/24
>VLAN 200 192.168.169.0/24
>New design:
Internet
|
s0
2600 router e1 --- public servers
e0
| dot1q trunk
switch
VLAN 200 VLAN 100
There is just one DHCP server. It will be in VLAN 100, address
192.168.168.10. The DHCP server will have 2 scopes for the 2 subnets.
We're going to do inter-VLAN routing on the 2600 router.
Will this config work as far as DHCP is concerned?
interface ethernet 0
no ip address
interface ethernet 0.1
encapsulation dot1q 100
ip address 192.168.168.1 255.255.255.0
interface ethernet 0.2
encapsulation dot1q 200
ip address 192.168.169.1 255.255.255.0
ip helper-address 192.168.168.10
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59646&t=59646
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
