Re: subnet vs. Vlan

2000-07-27 Thread Ian Schorr
Walker > Traylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > co.com> Subject: Re: subnet vs. Vlan > Sent by: > nobody@groups > tudy.com >

RE: subnet vs. Vlan

2000-07-21 Thread Steve Brokaw
]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: July 21, 2000 7:28:54 PM GMT Subject: RE: subnet vs. Vlan Your correct that the "only thing you need to do to make another subnet work on a VLAN is a secondary IP on the router". By doing this you are allowing the router to forward packets between devices on t

Re: subnet vs. Vlan

2000-07-21 Thread Walker Traylor
net a node belongs > to is the router. > > Karen E Young > Network Engineer > ELF Technologies, Inc > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Desk: 206-770-4035 > Pager: 206-994-4514 > > > Walker > Traylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTE

RE: subnet vs. Vlan

2000-07-21 Thread Kent Hundley
]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 21, 2000 9:13 AM To: Walker Traylor Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: subnet vs. Vlan I beg to differ on this one. I'm currently dealing with a network that has 4 VLANs. Two of those VLANs use multiple subnets. the only th

Re: subnet vs. Vlan

2000-07-21 Thread Karen . Young
ECTED] Subject: Re: subnet vs. Vlan Sent by: nobody@g

RE: subnet vs. Vlan

2000-07-21 Thread Irwin Lazar
>The simple way to think about it is this: VLAN = Subnet. If you do it any >other way you are defeating the purpose of using VLANs (except , of course, >for the earlier example I gave). >Tony --- Unfortunately that isn't the case anymore. If you look at what companies like Extreme are doing in

Re: subnet vs. Vlan

2000-07-20 Thread Tony Olzak
The simple way to think about it is this: VLAN = Subnet. If you do it any other way you are defeating the purpose of using VLANs (except , of course, for the earlier example I gave). Tony jeongwoo park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > HI all >

Re: subnet vs. Vlan

2000-07-20 Thread Jay Hennigan
On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, jeongwoo park wrote: > HI all > I have a question. > Cisco recommends that there be one-to-one relationship > between ip subnets and Vlans. > When the number of devices on a Vlan exceeds the > number of host ip addresses per configured subnet, > more than one subnet can exit

Re: subnet vs. Vlan

2000-07-20 Thread Walker Traylor
You must use a router between any networks, even if they are on the same VLAN. You do not need a router to merely connect VLANS if they are on the same network. However, you could just make them just one VLAN in that case. --Walker jeongwoo park wrote: > > HI all > I have a question. > Cis

Re: subnet vs. Vlan

2000-07-20 Thread Luis E. Rodriguez
What will probably happen is that not all hosts will get broadcasts. jeongwoo park wrote: > HI all > I have a question. > Cisco recommends that there be one-to-one relationship > between ip subnets and Vlans. > When the number of devices on a Vlan exceeds the > number of host ip addresses per co

Re: subnet vs. Vlan

2000-07-20 Thread Johnny Dedon
Hi jeonwoo I'll try to answer. Anyone can correct me if I am worng. If you have more than one subnet per vlan you would need a router to communicate between subnets. If you have more than one vlan per subnet, I don't think the users would be able to communicate between vlans. - Original Messa