Re: Private Vlans - Is this a good idea
Amen! ""Howard C. Berkowitz"" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:p0500190eb6e697785d87@[63.216.127.100]... Let me generalize my standard question of "what is the problem you are trying to solve," with "what problem do you NOT WANT to solve." What you are describing is a management, not a technical, problem. If your customers are part of the same organization as you are, someone to whom both of you report needs to explain economic realities to them. This explanation would be along the lines of: 1. The network organization has a budget. 2. This budget is based on certain rational engineering assumptions about what components can do, and what services can safely share the same component. 3. VLANs were invented as a security technique, with the goal of isolating groups of users. 3a) The "multi-VLAN" approach that allows a port to be in more than one VLAN, IMNSHO, is _evil_, has marginal applicability, and designs that include it should be tied up and thrown into a pond. If they float, burn them at the stake. If they don't float, let them drown. 4. There is no reason for concern about sharing a properly configured switch. Unless the customer can document WHY it is a problem, their only justification is FUD, and the network organization should not have its budget governed by FUD. 5. If there are real security requirements for physical switch separation, as might be specified for government classified networks that follow RED/BLACK isolation criteria, then the costs of additional switchgear should be part of the budget of the organization with the security requirement. If your customers are a true customer and you are in a profit-making world, I would have the appropriate management (i.e., that is concerned with cost of sales rather than gross revenue) consider carefully if you can afford having them as a customer. Your strategic business interest may be served by letting your competitor inherit this customer's problems. In other words, the customer needs to ask, "what part of NO do you fail to understand?" Roberts, I don't think 5500 supports pvlan, it has to be 6500, but I heard from somewhere those lower end 2948/4000 also will be able to support pvlan very soon. pvlan, from my understanding, does not give you more security among vlans. It only controls ports within the same vlan by preventing them from talking to each other without your control. It is more of a way of saving vlans for service providers. Correct. I believe the doc of 6500 explains it pretty well. If your customer is concerned about vlan leak, I am afraid you will probably have to give them a seperate switch or they can use some kind encryption before sending out any traffic. Just my 2 cents. HTH KY ""Roberts, Timothy"" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... I have some customers that need to be connected to my network. They insist on not having their servers connected to a switch that has other customers on it. They will not pay for an additional switch. I was considering recommending private vlans? That way things are more secure on the switch. Is this a good idea? The current switches are catalyst 5500. Does this hardware support private vlans? I have checked the documentation and I have only found that the software needs to be 5.4(1) but they make no mention of hardware requirements. _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Private Vlans - Is this a good idea
FUD - Sounds gud! What is it? If the FU stands for what I think it does, what does the D stand for. Sorry for dragging the thread to one side, but I think I work somewhere that FUD cud become a major part of our vocabulary. I don't want to make up my own D if it's already in popular use :-) Cheers, Gaz ""Howard C. Berkowitz"" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:p0500190eb6e697785d87@[63.216.127.100]... Let me generalize my standard question of "what is the problem you are trying to solve," with "what problem do you NOT WANT to solve." What you are describing is a management, not a technical, problem. If your customers are part of the same organization as you are, someone to whom both of you report needs to explain economic realities to them. This explanation would be along the lines of: 1. The network organization has a budget. 2. This budget is based on certain rational engineering assumptions about what components can do, and what services can safely share the same component. 3. VLANs were invented as a security technique, with the goal of isolating groups of users. 3a) The "multi-VLAN" approach that allows a port to be in more than one VLAN, IMNSHO, is _evil_, has marginal applicability, and designs that include it should be tied up and thrown into a pond. If they float, burn them at the stake. If they don't float, let them drown. 4. There is no reason for concern about sharing a properly configured switch. Unless the customer can document WHY it is a problem, their only justification is FUD, and the network organization should not have its budget governed by FUD. 5. If there are real security requirements for physical switch separation, as might be specified for government classified networks that follow RED/BLACK isolation criteria, then the costs of additional switchgear should be part of the budget of the organization with the security requirement. If your customers are a true customer and you are in a profit-making world, I would have the appropriate management (i.e., that is concerned with cost of sales rather than gross revenue) consider carefully if you can afford having them as a customer. Your strategic business interest may be served by letting your competitor inherit this customer's problems. In other words, the customer needs to ask, "what part of NO do you fail to understand?" Roberts, I don't think 5500 supports pvlan, it has to be 6500, but I heard from somewhere those lower end 2948/4000 also will be able to support pvlan very soon. pvlan, from my understanding, does not give you more security among vlans. It only controls ports within the same vlan by preventing them from talking to each other without your control. It is more of a way of saving vlans for service providers. Correct. I believe the doc of 6500 explains it pretty well. If your customer is concerned about vlan leak, I am afraid you will probably have to give them a seperate switch or they can use some kind encryption before sending out any traffic. Just my 2 cents. HTH KY ""Roberts, Timothy"" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... I have some customers that need to be connected to my network. They insist on not having their servers connected to a switch that has other customers on it. They will not pay for an additional switch. I was considering recommending private vlans? That way things are more secure on the switch. Is this a good idea? The current switches are catalyst 5500. Does this hardware support private vlans? I have checked the documentation and I have only found that the software needs to be 5.4(1) but they make no mention of hardware requirements. _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FUD definition (WAS: Private Vlans - Is this a good idea)
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=20165 HTH, TroyC -Original Message- From: Gareth Hinton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 2:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Private Vlans - Is this a good idea FUD - Sounds gud! What is it? If the FU stands for what I think it does, what does the D stand for. Sorry for dragging the thread to one side, but I think I work somewhere that FUD cud become a major part of our vocabulary. I don't want to make up my own D if it's already in popular use :-) Cheers, Gaz ""Howard C. Berkowitz"" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:p0500190eb6e697785d87@[63.216.127.100]... Let me generalize my standard question of "what is the problem you are trying to solve," with "what problem do you NOT WANT to solve." What you are describing is a management, not a technical, problem. If your customers are part of the same organization as you are, someone to whom both of you report needs to explain economic realities to them. This explanation would be along the lines of: 1. The network organization has a budget. 2. This budget is based on certain rational engineering assumptions about what components can do, and what services can safely share the same component. 3. VLANs were invented as a security technique, with the goal of isolating groups of users. 3a) The "multi-VLAN" approach that allows a port to be in more than one VLAN, IMNSHO, is _evil_, has marginal applicability, and designs that include it should be tied up and thrown into a pond. If they float, burn them at the stake. If they don't float, let them drown. 4. There is no reason for concern about sharing a properly configured switch. Unless the customer can document WHY it is a problem, their only justification is FUD, and the network organization should not have its budget governed by FUD. 5. If there are real security requirements for physical switch separation, as might be specified for government classified networks that follow RED/BLACK isolation criteria, then the costs of additional switchgear should be part of the budget of the organization with the security requirement. If your customers are a true customer and you are in a profit-making world, I would have the appropriate management (i.e., that is concerned with cost of sales rather than gross revenue) consider carefully if you can afford having them as a customer. Your strategic business interest may be served by letting your competitor inherit this customer's problems. In other words, the customer needs to ask, "what part of NO do you fail to understand?" Roberts, I don't think 5500 supports pvlan, it has to be 6500, but I heard from somewhere those lower end 2948/4000 also will be able to support pvlan very soon. pvlan, from my understanding, does not give you more security among vlans. It only controls ports within the same vlan by preventing them from talking to each other without your control. It is more of a way of saving vlans for service providers. Correct. I believe the doc of 6500 explains it pretty well. If your customer is concerned about vlan leak, I am afraid you will probably have to give them a seperate switch or they can use some kind encryption before sending out any traffic. Just my 2 cents. HTH KY ""Roberts, Timothy"" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... I have some customers that need to be connected to my network. They insist on not having their servers connected to a switch that has other customers on it. They will not pay for an additional switch. I was considering recommending private vlans? That way things are more secure on the switch. Is this a good idea? The current switches are catalyst 5500. Does this hardware support private vlans? I have checked the documentation and I have only found that the software needs to be 5.4(1) but they make no mention of hardware requirements. _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Private Vlans - Is this a good idea
I have some customers that need to be connected to my network. They insist on not having their servers connected to a switch that has other customers on it. They will not pay for an additional switch. I was considering recommending private vlans? That way things are more secure on the switch. Is this a good idea? The current switches are catalyst 5500. Does this hardware support private vlans? I have checked the documentation and I have only found that the software needs to be 5.4(1) but they make no mention of hardware requirements. Thanks _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Private Vlans - Is this a good idea
Roberts, I don't think 5500 supports pvlan, it has to be 6500, but I heard from somewhere those lower end 2948/4000 also will be able to support pvlan very soon. pvlan, from my understanding, does not give you more security among vlans. It only controls ports within the same vlan by preventing them from talking to each other without your control. It is more of a way of saving vlans for service providers. I believe the doc of 6500 explains it pretty well. If your customer is concerned about vlan leak, I am afraid you will probably have to give them a seperate switch or they can use some kind encryption before sending out any traffic. Just my 2 cents. HTH KY ""Roberts, Timothy"" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... I have some customers that need to be connected to my network. They insist on not having their servers connected to a switch that has other customers on it. They will not pay for an additional switch. I was considering recommending private vlans? That way things are more secure on the switch. Is this a good idea? The current switches are catalyst 5500. Does this hardware support private vlans? I have checked the documentation and I have only found that the software needs to be 5.4(1) but they make no mention of hardware requirements. Thanks _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Private Vlans - Is this a good idea #2
I forgot that I will be upgrading the 5500s to 6509s before this would be implemented. I have some customers that need to be connected to my network. They insist on not having their servers connected to a switch that has other customers on it. They will not pay for an additional switch. I was considering recommending private vlans? That way things are more secure on the switch. Is this a good idea? The current switches are catalyst 5500. Does this hardware support private vlans? I have checked the documentation and I have only found that the software needs to be 5.4(1) but they make no mention of hardware requirements. Thanks _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Private Vlans - Is this a good idea
Let me generalize my standard question of "what is the problem you are trying to solve," with "what problem do you NOT WANT to solve." What you are describing is a management, not a technical, problem. If your customers are part of the same organization as you are, someone to whom both of you report needs to explain economic realities to them. This explanation would be along the lines of: 1. The network organization has a budget. 2. This budget is based on certain rational engineering assumptions about what components can do, and what services can safely share the same component. 3. VLANs were invented as a security technique, with the goal of isolating groups of users. 3a) The "multi-VLAN" approach that allows a port to be in more than one VLAN, IMNSHO, is _evil_, has marginal applicability, and designs that include it should be tied up and thrown into a pond. If they float, burn them at the stake. If they don't float, let them drown. 4. There is no reason for concern about sharing a properly configured switch. Unless the customer can document WHY it is a problem, their only justification is FUD, and the network organization should not have its budget governed by FUD. 5. If there are real security requirements for physical switch separation, as might be specified for government classified networks that follow RED/BLACK isolation criteria, then the costs of additional switchgear should be part of the budget of the organization with the security requirement. If your customers are a true customer and you are in a profit-making world, I would have the appropriate management (i.e., that is concerned with cost of sales rather than gross revenue) consider carefully if you can afford having them as a customer. Your strategic business interest may be served by letting your competitor inherit this customer's problems. In other words, the customer needs to ask, "what part of NO do you fail to understand?" Roberts, I don't think 5500 supports pvlan, it has to be 6500, but I heard from somewhere those lower end 2948/4000 also will be able to support pvlan very soon. pvlan, from my understanding, does not give you more security among vlans. It only controls ports within the same vlan by preventing them from talking to each other without your control. It is more of a way of saving vlans for service providers. Correct. I believe the doc of 6500 explains it pretty well. If your customer is concerned about vlan leak, I am afraid you will probably have to give them a seperate switch or they can use some kind encryption before sending out any traffic. Just my 2 cents. HTH KY ""Roberts, Timothy"" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... I have some customers that need to be connected to my network. They insist on not having their servers connected to a switch that has other customers on it. They will not pay for an additional switch. I was considering recommending private vlans? That way things are more secure on the switch. Is this a good idea? The current switches are catalyst 5500. Does this hardware support private vlans? I have checked the documentation and I have only found that the software needs to be 5.4(1) but they make no mention of hardware requirements. _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Private Vlans
People get so confused as soon as you add a V in front of LAN. What would a private LAN be? One that is isolated/firewalled/ACL'd from other LANs. The same would be for a VLAN, with the advantage that VLANs have (dynamic ports, trunking between switches/routers, etc). -- Jason Roysdon, CCNP+Security/CCDP, MCSE, CNA, Network+, A+ List email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://jason.artoo.net/ Cisco resources: http://r2cisco.artoo.net/ "nobody" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message 009901c0a121$69154c10$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:009901c0a121$69154c10$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... sorry, my oversight. i already responded to timothy, but if you go to www.google.com and type in private vlans you should be at the begining of you search. i only skimmed through the first few links and it seems worth a while ;-) p. - Original Message - From: "Leigh Anne Chisholm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "nobody" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "Roberts, Timothy" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 4:11 PM Subject: RE: Private Vlans Thank you, "nobody" for helping teach common sense - but Timothy DID indicate he did try to find the information on Cisco's site before he posted his query to the group. PRIVATE VLANs are the latest switching hype to come out of Cisco. Our local Cisco rep recently did a presentation which covered this - and there's so little information that explains this topic well, even HE was confused. I quickly scanned the link you provided on www.cisco.com for more information information on private VLANs. Perhaps you could provide Timothy and myself with a more direct link? -- Leigh Anne -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of nobody Sent: February 27, 2001 4:44 PM To: Roberts, Timothy; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Private Vlans i thought this is an appropriate link for all, who first want to learn how to search the web and then do it right. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/hqlibrary/pathfinders/nethelp.htm and here is the info you should have found at www.cisco.com on VLANs: http://www.cisco.com/cgi-bin/Support/PSP/psp_view.pl?p=Internetworking:VLANs _and_Trunking:802.1Q - Original Message - From: "Roberts, Timothy" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 1:36 PM Subject: Private Vlans Can someone please provide me with a link to some good information on Private Vlans. I checked out Cisco's site but the only thing that I could find took me to marketing information on the 6500. Thanks _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Private Vlans
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/cat6000/sft_6_1/configgd /vlans.htm http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/si/casi/ca6000/tech/c65sp_wp.htm Give a good idea of configuring and deploying PVLAN's These pointers became my introduction to Private VLANs. My first impression of the material was "huh? What problem is this solving?" My second impression is that the marketing people have come up with yet another proprietary name for a set of functions that all are well-defined, although admittedly it may be original to package them together. The motivation for much of this seems to be generalizing "Ethernet" to non-LAN applications, such as using optical Fast or Gigabit Ethernet as an access technique. Inside Nortel, I recently was accused of sending out the "sermon email" bewailing that the word "Ethernet" is being extended so that it's approximately as precise as "switch" or "hub," rather than a family of specific IEEE 802 specifications and some vendor extensions. As I read the Private VLAN spec, although I haven't extensively analyzed it, it appears to be a means of imposing a hub-and-spoke, NBMA subnet onto a switched Ethernet subnet. In other words, switched Ethernet is normally a classical IP subnet that follows the local versus remote assumption: if you are on the same subnet as another node, according to this assumption, you have layer 2 connectivity to it. WAN NBMA services such as frame and ATM partial meshes violate this assumption. Private VLANs appear to be such a topology restriction, which I suppose may have applications when VLAN technology is simply being used for transmission. It's rather ironic that VLANs, as first defined in IEEE 802.10, were conceived as a security solution and included encryption. The evolution to 802.1 took out the security features, but Private VLANs are introducing a different security mechanism. If I went back to basics in the 802.10 model and applied it to private VLANs, considering one direction of transmission only just for simplicity, I might achieve a cryptographic equivalent that suggests that the promiscuous node had a set of decryption keys for traffic encrypted by isolated ports. Isolated ports would each have a unique encryption key. Another way to look at it is that there is, in IPsec terms, a set of security associations from the isolated ports to a common promiscuous port. Many-to-one topology, in contrast to the usual one-to-many we see in multicast. On the other hand, the same topology could be achieved by having each isolated node use a /31 subnet, or some flavor of unnumbered subnet, and have the promiscuous node present some aggregated subnet to the larger routing system. So I'm not sure precisely what problem this solves. It seems to have an assumption that it is worthwhile to reduce the number of VLANs in the system, but I'm not completely sure why this is a problem. Limiting IDB consumption by subinterfaces perhaps? _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Private Vlans
Can someone please provide me with a link to some good information on Private Vlans. I checked out Cisco's site but the only thing that I could find took me to marketing information on the 6500. Thanks _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Private Vlans
i thought this is an appropriate link for all, who first want to learn how to search the web and then do it right. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/hqlibrary/pathfinders/nethelp.htm and here is the info you should have found at www.cisco.com on VLANs: http://www.cisco.com/cgi-bin/Support/PSP/psp_view.pl?p=Internetworking:VLANs _and_Trunking:802.1Q - Original Message - From: "Roberts, Timothy" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 1:36 PM Subject: Private Vlans Can someone please provide me with a link to some good information on Private Vlans. I checked out Cisco's site but the only thing that I could find took me to marketing information on the 6500. Thanks _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Private Vlans
Thank you, "nobody" for helping teach common sense - but Timothy DID indicate he did try to find the information on Cisco's site before he posted his query to the group. PRIVATE VLANs are the latest switching hype to come out of Cisco. Our local Cisco rep recently did a presentation which covered this - and there's so little information that explains this topic well, even HE was confused. I quickly scanned the link you provided on www.cisco.com for more information information on private VLANs. Perhaps you could provide Timothy and myself with a more direct link? -- Leigh Anne -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of nobody Sent: February 27, 2001 4:44 PM To: Roberts, Timothy; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Private Vlans i thought this is an appropriate link for all, who first want to learn how to search the web and then do it right. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/hqlibrary/pathfinders/nethelp.htm and here is the info you should have found at www.cisco.com on VLANs: http://www.cisco.com/cgi-bin/Support/PSP/psp_view.pl?p=Internetworking:VLANs _and_Trunking:802.1Q - Original Message - From: "Roberts, Timothy" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 1:36 PM Subject: Private Vlans Can someone please provide me with a link to some good information on Private Vlans. I checked out Cisco's site but the only thing that I could find took me to marketing information on the 6500. Thanks _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Private Vlans
I did not ask for general information regarding vlans. I asked if anyone knew about any specific links regarding PRIVATE VLANS. You know, something that has more than one line pertaining to PRIVATE VLANS. But thank you very much for your assitance. It was greatly appreciated. I just hope that everyone else on this list can benefit from your woderful words of wisdom. -Original Message- From: nobody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 3:44 PM To: Roberts, Timothy; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Private Vlans i thought this is an appropriate link for all, who first want to learn how to search the web and then do it right. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/hqlibrary/pathfinders/nethelp.htm and here is the info you should have found at www.cisco.com on VLANs: http://www.cisco.com/cgi-bin/Support/PSP/psp_view.pl?p=Internetworking:VLANs _and_Trunking:802.1Q - Original Message - From: "Roberts, Timothy" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 1:36 PM Subject: Private Vlans Can someone please provide me with a link to some good information on Private Vlans. I checked out Cisco's site but the only thing that I could find took me to marketing information on the 6500. Thanks _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Private Vlans
sorry, my oversight. i already responded to timothy, but if you go to www.google.com and type in private vlans you should be at the begining of you search. i only skimmed through the first few links and it seems worth a while ;-) p. - Original Message - From: "Leigh Anne Chisholm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "nobody" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "Roberts, Timothy" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 4:11 PM Subject: RE: Private Vlans Thank you, "nobody" for helping teach common sense - but Timothy DID indicate he did try to find the information on Cisco's site before he posted his query to the group. PRIVATE VLANs are the latest switching hype to come out of Cisco. Our local Cisco rep recently did a presentation which covered this - and there's so little information that explains this topic well, even HE was confused. I quickly scanned the link you provided on www.cisco.com for more information information on private VLANs. Perhaps you could provide Timothy and myself with a more direct link? -- Leigh Anne -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of nobody Sent: February 27, 2001 4:44 PM To: Roberts, Timothy; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Private Vlans i thought this is an appropriate link for all, who first want to learn how to search the web and then do it right. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/hqlibrary/pathfinders/nethelp.htm and here is the info you should have found at www.cisco.com on VLANs: http://www.cisco.com/cgi-bin/Support/PSP/psp_view.pl?p=Internetworking:VLANs _and_Trunking:802.1Q - Original Message - From: "Roberts, Timothy" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 1:36 PM Subject: Private Vlans Can someone please provide me with a link to some good information on Private Vlans. I checked out Cisco's site but the only thing that I could find took me to marketing information on the 6500. Thanks _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Private Vlans
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/cat6000/sft_6_1/configgd /vlans.htm is what I use for understanding/configuring PVLANs. This explains the technology and how to deploy it. I wouldn't consider this marketing information. ""Roberts, Timothy"" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Can someone please provide me with a link to some good information on Private Vlans. I checked out Cisco's site but the only thing that I could find took me to marketing information on the 6500. Thanks _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Private Vlans
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/cat6000/sft_6_1/configgd /vlans.htm http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/si/casi/ca6000/tech/c65sp_wp.htm Give a good idea of configuring and deploying PVLAN's Thank you, "nobody" for helping teach common sense - but Timothy DID indicate he did try to find the information on Cisco's site before he posted his query to the group. PRIVATE VLANs are the latest switching hype to come out of Cisco. Our local Cisco rep recently did a presentation which covered this - and there's so little information that explains this topic well, even HE was confused. I quickly scanned the link you provided on www.cisco.com for more information information on private VLANs. Perhaps you could provide Timothy and myself with a more direct link? -- Leigh Anne Stan M. Hoffman, MCSE, CCNA Senior Network Engineer RealEC Houston, TX _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Private VLANs on 6500 - pvlan
Hi everybody, =20 Has somebody deployed Private VLANs using Cat6500. I would want to know = more about the implementation and requirements (more that the few info on = CCO). =20 Thanks, =20 Alvaro Riera CCIE 6826, CCNP+Voice Access+Security, CCDP Networking Consultant es=E4vio, Inc =20 _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
