RE: switch default gateway question [7:72288]
Say what? Why don't you just create additional VLANs for the new address space(s) and move PC's to the new VLANs as their addresses are changed? There is no need to be messing around with dual default routes. You could move all of the switches over to the new address space immediately, or change them over time to the new address and VLAN. If you are not using VLANs, then why did you purchase 4506s, 3550s, and 6509s? Fred Reimer - CCNA Eclipsys Corporation, 200 Ashford Center North, Atlanta, GA 30338 Phone: 404-847-5177 Cell: 770-490-3071 Pager: 888-260-2050 NOTICE; This email contains confidential or proprietary information which may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the named recipient(s). If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected the email, please notify the author by replying to this message. If you are not the named recipient, you are not authorized to use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email, and should immediately delete it from your computer. -Original Message- From: gab S.E jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 5:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: switch default gateway question [7:72288] Basically I want to know how best to approach the situation. Our network is all statically mapped no dynamic routing our switches(4506,3550,6509) are going to be changed to a different address range. the switches can accept more than one default gateway. The core routers addresses has to be changed to the same subnet as the switches soon 1)the switch old ip address is on a 11/8 address pointing to the core router(interface) with a 11/8 address 2)now the switch addresses are being changed to a 10/16(subnetted) address and the default gateway has to point to the core with a 10/16 address as well Myu approach was to 1)configure the swith with another default pointing to a 10/16 2)configure a secondary interface on the core with a 10/16 address 3)the other core routers connected to this core will be also given a secondary of 10/16 address 4)then on the core routers put floating statics for all our original routes to point to the default GW 10/16 addresses I presume that because the swithes now have to defalt GW statements that the swith will automatically send packest for pc's of 10 and 11 addresses. While we slowly migrate all our lan devices to the new 10/16 GW 5)will start gradually changing the lan devices to start pointing to the 10/16 GW Please correct me if im thinking of this the wrong way. Any advice will be greatly appreciated My apologies if I didnt explain myself properly regards, seun Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72301&t=72288 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switch default gateway question [7:72288]
If you mean a L2 device when you say "switch", then those don't forward packets from the PCs based on default gateway. If this is news to you, then I am a bit worried about the outcome of this renumbering exercise... :) Anyway, I think you need to configure the secondary IP addresses only on the interfaces which face PCs (I would configure the *old* address as secondary). Every other interface can be readdressed in one step, one network segment at a time, along with the corresponding static routes (will be fun... have you thought about dynamic routing? :). I also don't think you need *floating* static routes, just an ordinary static route pointing to the new subnets (you need floating static routes when you have multiple ways to the same destination, not when you have two destinations at the end of the same way). When you set up all this, you can start moving the hosts (ie. PCs *and* the switches) to the new subnets, and that's about it. Thanks, Zsombor At 09:47 AM 7/15/2003 +, gab S.E jones wrote: >Basically I want to know how best to approach the situation. Our network is >all statically mapped no dynamic routing > >our switches(4506,3550,6509) are going to be changed to a different address >range. the switches can accept more than one default gateway. >The core routers addresses has to be changed to the same subnet as the >switches soon > >1)the switch old ip address is on a 11/8 address pointing to the core >router(interface) with a 11/8 address >2)now the switch addresses are being changed to a 10/16(subnetted) address >and the default gateway has to point to the core with a 10/16 address as well > >Myu approach was to > >1)configure the swith with another default pointing to a 10/16 >2)configure a secondary interface on the core with a 10/16 address >3)the other core routers connected to this core will be also given a >secondary of 10/16 address >4)then on the core routers put floating statics for all our original routes >to point to the default GW 10/16 addresses > >I presume that because the swithes now have to defalt GW statements that the >swith will automatically send packest for pc's of 10 and 11 addresses. While >we slowly migrate all our lan devices to the new 10/16 GW > >5)will start gradually changing the lan devices to start pointing to the >10/16 GW > >Please correct me if im thinking of this the wrong way. > >Any advice will be greatly appreciated > >My apologies if I didnt explain myself properly > >regards, >seun Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72317&t=72288 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: switch default gateway question [7:72288]
Hi Fred, Yes we are using vlans. Hence why we purchased the types of switches What I listed was a suggestion in which I asked if that way to would work. I know you can create another vlan sub-interface and start moving the the new addresses. I was thinking of the idea that if the switches can accept more than 2 default routes then why wont that way work What is wrong with dual default routes? As i understand according to how these works there will be a primary default etc regards, seun >From: "Reimer, Fred" >To: "gab S.E jones" , [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: switch default gateway question [7:72288] >Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:11:24 -0400 > >Say what? > >Why don't you just create additional VLANs for the new address space(s) and >move PC's to the new VLANs as their addresses are changed? There is no >need >to be messing around with dual default routes. You could move all of the >switches over to the new address space immediately, or change them over >time >to the new address and VLAN. > >If you are not using VLANs, then why did you purchase 4506s, 3550s, and >6509s? > >Fred Reimer - CCNA > > >Eclipsys Corporation, 200 Ashford Center North, Atlanta, GA 30338 >Phone: 404-847-5177 Cell: 770-490-3071 Pager: 888-260-2050 > > >NOTICE; This email contains confidential or proprietary information which >may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the named recipient(s). >If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected the email, please >notify the author by replying to this message. If you are not the named >recipient, you are not authorized to use, disclose, distribute, copy, print >or rely on this email, and should immediately delete it from your computer. > > >-Original Message- >From: gab S.E jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 5:48 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: switch default gateway question [7:72288] > >Basically I want to know how best to approach the situation. Our network is >all statically mapped no dynamic routing > >our switches(4506,3550,6509) are going to be changed to a different address >range. the switches can accept more than one default gateway. >The core routers addresses has to be changed to the same subnet as the >switches soon > >1)the switch old ip address is on a 11/8 address pointing to the core >router(interface) with a 11/8 address >2)now the switch addresses are being changed to a 10/16(subnetted) address >and the default gateway has to point to the core with a 10/16 address as >well > >Myu approach was to > >1)configure the swith with another default pointing to a 10/16 >2)configure a secondary interface on the core with a 10/16 address >3)the other core routers connected to this core will be also given a >secondary of 10/16 address >4)then on the core routers put floating statics for all our original routes >to point to the default GW 10/16 addresses > >I presume that because the swithes now have to defalt GW statements that >the >swith will automatically send packest for pc's of 10 and 11 addresses. >While >we slowly migrate all our lan devices to the new 10/16 GW > >5)will start gradually changing the lan devices to start pointing to the >10/16 GW > >Please correct me if im thinking of this the wrong way. > >Any advice will be greatly appreciated > >My apologies if I didnt explain myself properly > >regards, >seun _ Sign-up for a FREE BT Broadband connection today! http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/btbroadband Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72319&t=72288 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switch default gateway question [7:72288]
hi Zsombor I certainly didnt mean a raw L2 switch device. I certainly understand what the diffrence of default gateway means as opposed to a gateway. The method I listed was just to have opinions on if this way would work and for any better ideas. As suggested before creating another vlan would be more ideal. Yes agreed we know that floating statics are used when you have multiple ways to the same destination in which you can load balnace or use as a backup. In which if im correct in the case of load balancing you can load balance traffic to the same destinating but using differnt paths or links Thanks Zsombor regards, seun >From: Zsombor Papp >To: "gab S.E jones" >CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: switch default gateway question [7:72288] >Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:01:06 -0700 > >If you mean a L2 device when you say "switch", then those don't forward >packets from the PCs based on default gateway. If this is news to you, then >I am a bit worried about the outcome of this renumbering exercise... :) > >Anyway, I think you need to configure the secondary IP addresses only on >the interfaces which face PCs (I would configure the *old* address as >secondary). Every other interface can be readdressed in one step, one >network segment at a time, along with the corresponding static routes (will >be fun... have you thought about dynamic routing? :). I also don't think >you need *floating* static routes, just an ordinary static route pointing >to the new subnets (you need floating static routes when you have multiple >ways to the same destination, not when you have two destinations at the end >of the same way). When you set up all this, you can start moving the hosts >(ie. PCs *and* the switches) to the new subnets, and that's about it. > >Thanks, > >Zsombor > >At 09:47 AM 7/15/2003 +, gab S.E jones wrote: >>Basically I want to know how best to approach the situation. Our network >>is >>all statically mapped no dynamic routing >> >>our switches(4506,3550,6509) are going to be changed to a different >>address >>range. the switches can accept more than one default gateway. >>The core routers addresses has to be changed to the same subnet as the >>switches soon >> >>1)the switch old ip address is on a 11/8 address pointing to the core >>router(interface) with a 11/8 address >>2)now the switch addresses are being changed to a 10/16(subnetted) address >>and the default gateway has to point to the core with a 10/16 address as >>well >> >>Myu approach was to >> >>1)configure the swith with another default pointing to a 10/16 >>2)configure a secondary interface on the core with a 10/16 address >>3)the other core routers connected to this core will be also given a >>secondary of 10/16 address >>4)then on the core routers put floating statics for all our original >>routes >>to point to the default GW 10/16 addresses >> >>I presume that because the swithes now have to defalt GW statements that >>the >>swith will automatically send packest for pc's of 10 and 11 addresses. >>While >>we slowly migrate all our lan devices to the new 10/16 GW >> >>5)will start gradually changing the lan devices to start pointing to the >>10/16 GW >> >>Please correct me if im thinking of this the wrong way. >> >>Any advice will be greatly appreciated >> >>My apologies if I didnt explain myself properly >> >>regards, >>seun _ Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72321&t=72288 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: switch default gateway question [7:72288]
I'm not saying that your way won't work. To tell you the truth, I don't really understand your method. I've just been through a lot of migrations myself in the past with customers, and creating new VLANs and moving users over to them is the typical way it is accomplished. Fred Reimer - CCNA Eclipsys Corporation, 200 Ashford Center North, Atlanta, GA 30338 Phone: 404-847-5177 Cell: 770-490-3071 Pager: 888-260-2050 NOTICE; This email contains confidential or proprietary information which may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the named recipient(s). If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected the email, please notify the author by replying to this message. If you are not the named recipient, you are not authorized to use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email, and should immediately delete it from your computer. -Original Message- From: gab.seun jones.ewulomi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 12:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: switch default gateway question [7:72288] Hi Fred, Yes we are using vlans. Hence why we purchased the types of switches What I listed was a suggestion in which I asked if that way to would work. I know you can create another vlan sub-interface and start moving the the new addresses. I was thinking of the idea that if the switches can accept more than 2 default routes then why wont that way work What is wrong with dual default routes? As i understand according to how these works there will be a primary default etc regards, seun >From: "Reimer, Fred" >To: "gab S.E jones" , [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: switch default gateway question [7:72288] >Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:11:24 -0400 > >Say what? > >Why don't you just create additional VLANs for the new address space(s) and >move PC's to the new VLANs as their addresses are changed? There is no >need >to be messing around with dual default routes. You could move all of the >switches over to the new address space immediately, or change them over >time >to the new address and VLAN. > >If you are not using VLANs, then why did you purchase 4506s, 3550s, and >6509s? > >Fred Reimer - CCNA > > >Eclipsys Corporation, 200 Ashford Center North, Atlanta, GA 30338 >Phone: 404-847-5177 Cell: 770-490-3071 Pager: 888-260-2050 > > >NOTICE; This email contains confidential or proprietary information which >may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the named recipient(s). >If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected the email, please >notify the author by replying to this message. If you are not the named >recipient, you are not authorized to use, disclose, distribute, copy, print >or rely on this email, and should immediately delete it from your computer. > > >-Original Message- >From: gab S.E jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 5:48 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: switch default gateway question [7:72288] > >Basically I want to know how best to approach the situation. Our network is >all statically mapped no dynamic routing > >our switches(4506,3550,6509) are going to be changed to a different address >range. the switches can accept more than one default gateway. >The core routers addresses has to be changed to the same subnet as the >switches soon > >1)the switch old ip address is on a 11/8 address pointing to the core >router(interface) with a 11/8 address >2)now the switch addresses are being changed to a 10/16(subnetted) address >and the default gateway has to point to the core with a 10/16 address as >well > >Myu approach was to > >1)configure the swith with another default pointing to a 10/16 >2)configure a secondary interface on the core with a 10/16 address >3)the other core routers connected to this core will be also given a >secondary of 10/16 address >4)then on the core routers put floating statics for all our original routes >to point to the default GW 10/16 addresses > >I presume that because the swithes now have to defalt GW statements that >the >swith will automatically send packest for pc's of 10 and 11 addresses. >While >we slowly migrate all our lan devices to the new 10/16 GW > >5)will start gradually changing the lan devices to start pointing to the >10/16 GW > >Please correct me if im thinking of this the wrong way. > >Any advice will be greatly appreciated > >My apologies if I didnt explain myself properly > >regards, >seun _ Sign-up for a FREE BT Broadband connection today! http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/btbroadband Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72323&t=72288 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: switch default gateway question [7:72288]
At 05:26 PM 7/15/2003 +0100, gab.seun jones.ewulomi wrote: >As suggested before creating another vlan would be more ideal. Why would it be more ideal? >Yes agreed we know that floating statics are used when you have multiple >ways to the same destination in which you can load balnace or use as a backup. Floating statics can be used only for backup, not for load balancing. > In which if im correct in the case of load balancing you can load > balance traffic to the same destinating but using differnt paths or links If you want to have load balancing, then you better start looking into dynamic routing. Thanks, Zsombor >Thanks Zsombor > >regards, >seun > > >>From: Zsombor Papp >>To: "gab S.E jones" >>CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: Re: switch default gateway question [7:72288] >>Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:01:06 -0700 >> >>If you mean a L2 device when you say "switch", then those don't forward >>packets from the PCs based on default gateway. If this is news to you, >>then I am a bit worried about the outcome of this renumbering exercise... :) >> >>Anyway, I think you need to configure the secondary IP addresses only on >>the interfaces which face PCs (I would configure the *old* address as >>secondary). Every other interface can be readdressed in one step, one >>network segment at a time, along with the corresponding static routes >>(will be fun... have you thought about dynamic routing? :). I also don't >>think you need *floating* static routes, just an ordinary static route >>pointing to the new subnets (you need floating static routes when you >>have multiple ways to the same destination, not when you have two >>destinations at the end of the same way). When you set up all this, you >>can start moving the hosts (ie. PCs *and* the switches) to the new >>subnets, and that's about it. >> >>Thanks, >> >>Zsombor >> >>At 09:47 AM 7/15/2003 +, gab S.E jones wrote: >>>Basically I want to know how best to approach the situation. Our network is >>>all statically mapped no dynamic routing >>> >>>our switches(4506,3550,6509) are going to be changed to a different address >>>range. the switches can accept more than one default gateway. >>>The core routers addresses has to be changed to the same subnet as the >>>switches soon >>> >>>1)the switch old ip address is on a 11/8 address pointing to the core >>>router(interface) with a 11/8 address >>>2)now the switch addresses are being changed to a 10/16(subnetted) address >>>and the default gateway has to point to the core with a 10/16 address as >>>well >>> >>>Myu approach was to >>> >>>1)configure the swith with another default pointing to a 10/16 >>>2)configure a secondary interface on the core with a 10/16 address >>>3)the other core routers connected to this core will be also given a >>>secondary of 10/16 address >>>4)then on the core routers put floating statics for all our original routes >>>to point to the default GW 10/16 addresses >>> >>>I presume that because the swithes now have to defalt GW statements that the >>>swith will automatically send packest for pc's of 10 and 11 addresses. While >>>we slowly migrate all our lan devices to the new 10/16 GW >>> >>>5)will start gradually changing the lan devices to start pointing to the >>>10/16 GW >>> >>>Please correct me if im thinking of this the wrong way. >>> >>>Any advice will be greatly appreciated >>> >>>My apologies if I didnt explain myself properly >>> >>>regards, >>>seun >_ >Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends >http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72325&t=72288 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: switch default gateway question [7:72288]
Reimer, Fred wrote: > > ">As suggested before creating another vlan would be more ideal. > > Why would it be more ideal?" > > Because it is cleaner. With the proposed solution you would be > dealing with > secondary addresses, traffic for both 10/16 and 11/8 floating > around on the > same VLAN, etc. Besides, it sounds like the network is "flat" > now, with an > 11/8 subnet (if you can call that a subnet). They are moving > to a 10/16 > address space, that is subnetted. I'd assume a logical > breakout like > > 10.0.2.0/23 > 10.0.4.0/23 > 10.0.6.0/23 > > etc, based on geographic location (separate subnet per IDF or > floor). It > would be pretty hard to do that all on one VLAN... So you are > going to be > moving 2000 PC's that are all in one VLAN to a bunch of > separate VLANs. > > This is assuming a lot, but it's not like we were sent a Visio > diagram of > the existing and planned network... That's for sure. The problem description didn't make an ounce of sense to me. :-) I spent a lot of time trying to figure it out but ended up just shaking my head. I'm glad you guys figured it out somehow. Was the network all one big flat network with everything being addressed with 11.0.0.0/8 before? And the switches really were just L2 switches? And now they are moving to subnets and using the switches as routers? That's my guess, but the problem description only talked about addressing between the switches and routers, (which shouldn't even be relevant if it really were just a flat network with L2 switches, so that's confusing). Now, the main point of my message is that it would be nice if people would spend a little more time considering their problem statements. Please tell us "the what" before "the how." A consultant told me once that was her mantra. Tell us what you are trying to accomplish and then tell us your suggestion for the solution. Thanks. Priscilla > > Fred Reimer - CCNA > > > Eclipsys Corporation, 200 Ashford Center North, Atlanta, GA > 30338 > Phone: 404-847-5177 Cell: 770-490-3071 Pager: 888-260-2050 > > > NOTICE; This email contains confidential or proprietary > information which > may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the named > recipient(s). > If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected the > email, please > notify the author by replying to this message. If you are not > the named > recipient, you are not authorized to use, disclose, distribute, > copy, print > or rely on this email, and should immediately delete it from > your computer. > > > -Original Message- > From: Zsombor Papp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 12:55 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: switch default gateway question [7:72288] > > At 05:26 PM 7/15/2003 +0100, gab.seun jones.ewulomi wrote: > >As suggested before creating another vlan would be more ideal. > > Why would it be more ideal? > > >Yes agreed we know that floating statics are used when you > have multiple > >ways to the same destination in which you can load balnace or > use as a > backup. > > Floating statics can be used only for backup, not for load > balancing. > > > In which if im correct in the case of load balancing you can > load > > balance traffic to the same destinating but using differnt > paths or links > > If you want to have load balancing, then you better start > looking into > dynamic routing. > > Thanks, > > Zsombor > > > >Thanks Zsombor > > > >regards, > >seun > > > > > >>From: Zsombor Papp > >>To: "gab S.E jones" > >>CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Subject: Re: switch default gateway question [7:72288] > >>Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:01:06 -0700 > >> > >>If you mean a L2 device when you say "switch", then those > don't forward > >>packets from the PCs based on default gateway. If this is > news to you, > >>then I am a bit worried about the outcome of this renumbering > exercise... > :) > >> > >>Anyway, I think you need to configure the secondary IP > addresses only on > >>the interfaces which face PCs (I would configure the *old* > address as > >>secondary). Every other interface can be readdressed in one > step, one > >>network segment at a time, along with the corresponding > static routes > >>(will be fun... have you thought about dynamic routing? :). I > also don't > >>think you need *floating* static routes, just an ordinary > static route > >
RE: switch default gateway question [7:72288]
">As suggested before creating another vlan would be more ideal. Why would it be more ideal?" Because it is cleaner. With the proposed solution you would be dealing with secondary addresses, traffic for both 10/16 and 11/8 floating around on the same VLAN, etc. Besides, it sounds like the network is "flat" now, with an 11/8 subnet (if you can call that a subnet). They are moving to a 10/16 address space, that is subnetted. I'd assume a logical breakout like 10.0.2.0/23 10.0.4.0/23 10.0.6.0/23 etc, based on geographic location (separate subnet per IDF or floor). It would be pretty hard to do that all on one VLAN... So you are going to be moving 2000 PC's that are all in one VLAN to a bunch of separate VLANs. This is assuming a lot, but it's not like we were sent a Visio diagram of the existing and planned network... Fred Reimer - CCNA Eclipsys Corporation, 200 Ashford Center North, Atlanta, GA 30338 Phone: 404-847-5177 Cell: 770-490-3071 Pager: 888-260-2050 NOTICE; This email contains confidential or proprietary information which may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the named recipient(s). If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected the email, please notify the author by replying to this message. If you are not the named recipient, you are not authorized to use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email, and should immediately delete it from your computer. -Original Message- From: Zsombor Papp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 12:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: switch default gateway question [7:72288] At 05:26 PM 7/15/2003 +0100, gab.seun jones.ewulomi wrote: >As suggested before creating another vlan would be more ideal. Why would it be more ideal? >Yes agreed we know that floating statics are used when you have multiple >ways to the same destination in which you can load balnace or use as a backup. Floating statics can be used only for backup, not for load balancing. > In which if im correct in the case of load balancing you can load > balance traffic to the same destinating but using differnt paths or links If you want to have load balancing, then you better start looking into dynamic routing. Thanks, Zsombor >Thanks Zsombor > >regards, >seun > > >>From: Zsombor Papp >>To: "gab S.E jones" >>CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: Re: switch default gateway question [7:72288] >>Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:01:06 -0700 >> >>If you mean a L2 device when you say "switch", then those don't forward >>packets from the PCs based on default gateway. If this is news to you, >>then I am a bit worried about the outcome of this renumbering exercise... :) >> >>Anyway, I think you need to configure the secondary IP addresses only on >>the interfaces which face PCs (I would configure the *old* address as >>secondary). Every other interface can be readdressed in one step, one >>network segment at a time, along with the corresponding static routes >>(will be fun... have you thought about dynamic routing? :). I also don't >>think you need *floating* static routes, just an ordinary static route >>pointing to the new subnets (you need floating static routes when you >>have multiple ways to the same destination, not when you have two >>destinations at the end of the same way). When you set up all this, you >>can start moving the hosts (ie. PCs *and* the switches) to the new >>subnets, and that's about it. >> >>Thanks, >> >>Zsombor >> >>At 09:47 AM 7/15/2003 +, gab S.E jones wrote: >>>Basically I want to know how best to approach the situation. Our network is >>>all statically mapped no dynamic routing >>> >>>our switches(4506,3550,6509) are going to be changed to a different address >>>range. the switches can accept more than one default gateway. >>>The core routers addresses has to be changed to the same subnet as the >>>switches soon >>> >>>1)the switch old ip address is on a 11/8 address pointing to the core >>>router(interface) with a 11/8 address >>>2)now the switch addresses are being changed to a 10/16(subnetted) address >>>and the default gateway has to point to the core with a 10/16 address as >>>well >>> >>>Myu approach was to >>> >>>1)configure the swith with another default pointing to a 10/16 >>>2)configure a secondary interface on the core with a 10/16 address >>>3)the other core routers connected to this core will be also given a >>>secondary of 10/16 address >>>4)then on the core routers put floating statics for all our original routes &g
RE: switch default gateway question [7:72288]
I guess missed a few details in the original email. :) If the question is how to move from a flat switched network to a subnetted routed network, then adding new VLAN might be a good idea (even though it's not always necessary; for example, if every switch is directly connected to a router then every switch can handle one subnet with just one VLAN). Just for renumbering, however, I think using secondary addresses is a much better solution than moving hosts to another vlan (and then removing the old vlan). Vlans are not any easier to deal with than secondary addresses, and "both 10/16 and 11/8 floating around on the same VLAN" is completely irrelevant, IMHO. Thanks, Zsombor At 02:36 PM 7/15/2003 -0400, Reimer, Fred wrote: >">As suggested before creating another vlan would be more ideal. > >Why would it be more ideal?" > >Because it is cleaner. With the proposed solution you would be dealing with >secondary addresses, traffic for both 10/16 and 11/8 floating around on the >same VLAN, etc. > > Besides, it sounds like the network is "flat" now, with an >11/8 subnet (if you can call that a subnet). They are moving to a 10/16 >address space, that is subnetted. > > I'd assume a logical breakout like > >10.0.2.0/23 >10.0.4.0/23 >10.0.6.0/23 > >etc, based on geographic location (separate subnet per IDF or floor). It >would be pretty hard to do that all on one VLAN... So you are going to be >moving 2000 PC's that are all in one VLAN to a bunch of separate VLANs. > >This is assuming a lot, but it's not like we were sent a Visio diagram of >the existing and planned network... > >Fred Reimer - CCNA > > >Eclipsys Corporation, 200 Ashford Center North, Atlanta, GA 30338 >Phone: 404-847-5177 Cell: 770-490-3071 Pager: 888-260-2050 > > >NOTICE; This email contains confidential or proprietary information which >may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the named recipient(s). >If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected the email, please >notify the author by replying to this message. If you are not the named >recipient, you are not authorized to use, disclose, distribute, copy, print >or rely on this email, and should immediately delete it from your computer. > > >-Original Message- >From: Zsombor Papp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 12:55 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: switch default gateway question [7:72288] > >At 05:26 PM 7/15/2003 +0100, gab.seun jones.ewulomi wrote: > >As suggested before creating another vlan would be more ideal. > >Why would it be more ideal? > > >Yes agreed we know that floating statics are used when you have multiple > >ways to the same destination in which you can load balnace or use as a >backup. > >Floating statics can be used only for backup, not for load balancing. > > > In which if im correct in the case of load balancing you can load > > balance traffic to the same destinating but using differnt paths or links > >If you want to have load balancing, then you better start looking into >dynamic routing. > >Thanks, > >Zsombor > > > >Thanks Zsombor > > > >regards, > >seun > > > > > >>From: Zsombor Papp > >>To: "gab S.E jones" > >>CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Subject: Re: switch default gateway question [7:72288] > >>Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:01:06 -0700 > >> > >>If you mean a L2 device when you say "switch", then those don't forward > >>packets from the PCs based on default gateway. If this is news to you, > >>then I am a bit worried about the outcome of this renumbering exercise... >:) > >> > >>Anyway, I think you need to configure the secondary IP addresses only on > >>the interfaces which face PCs (I would configure the *old* address as > >>secondary). Every other interface can be readdressed in one step, one > >>network segment at a time, along with the corresponding static routes > >>(will be fun... have you thought about dynamic routing? :). I also don't > >>think you need *floating* static routes, just an ordinary static route > >>pointing to the new subnets (you need floating static routes when you > >>have multiple ways to the same destination, not when you have two > >>destinations at the end of the same way). When you set up all this, you > >>can start moving the hosts (ie. PCs *and* the switches) to the new > >>subnets, and that's about it. > >> > >>Thanks, > >> > >>Zsombor > >> > >>At 09:47 AM 7/15/2003 +, gab
RE: switch default gateway question [7:72288]
ip default-gateway in IOS is only used when the device is acting as a host (not routing, etc). If it has IP routing enabled, then you probably want to use a default route (0.0.0.0/0) and/or other routes for your networks (static, RIP, EIGRP, etc). Erick --- "Reimer, Fred" wrote: > I'm not saying that your way won't work. To tell > you the truth, I don't > really understand your method. I've just been > through a lot of migrations > myself in the past with customers, and creating new > VLANs and moving users > over to them is the typical way it is accomplished. > > Fred Reimer - CCNA > > > Eclipsys Corporation, 200 Ashford Center North, > Atlanta, GA 30338 > Phone: 404-847-5177 Cell: 770-490-3071 Pager: > 888-260-2050 > > > NOTICE; This email contains confidential or > proprietary information which > may be legally privileged. It is intended only for > the named recipient(s). > If an addressing or transmission error has > misdirected the email, please > notify the author by replying to this message. If > you are not the named > recipient, you are not authorized to use, disclose, > distribute, copy, print > or rely on this email, and should immediately delete > it from your computer. > > > -Original Message- > From: gab.seun jones.ewulomi > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 12:16 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: switch default gateway question > [7:72288] > > > Hi Fred, > > Yes we are using vlans. Hence why we purchased the > types of switches > > What I listed was a suggestion in which I asked if > that way to would work. > > I know you can create another vlan sub-interface and > start moving the the > new addresses. > > I was thinking of the idea that if the switches can > accept more than 2 > default routes then why wont that way work > > What is wrong with dual default routes? > > As i understand according to how these works there > will be a primary default > > etc > > regards, > seun > > > >From: "Reimer, Fred" > >To: "gab S.E jones" , [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: RE: switch default gateway question > [7:72288] > >Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:11:24 -0400 > > > >Say what? > > > >Why don't you just create additional VLANs for the > new address space(s) and > >move PC's to the new VLANs as their addresses are > changed? There is no > >need > >to be messing around with dual default routes. You > could move all of the > >switches over to the new address space immediately, > or change them over > >time > >to the new address and VLAN. > > > >If you are not using VLANs, then why did you > purchase 4506s, 3550s, and > >6509s? > > > >Fred Reimer - CCNA > > > > > >Eclipsys Corporation, 200 Ashford Center North, > Atlanta, GA 30338 > >Phone: 404-847-5177 Cell: 770-490-3071 Pager: > 888-260-2050 > > > > > >NOTICE; This email contains confidential or > proprietary information which > >may be legally privileged. It is intended only for > the named recipient(s). > >If an addressing or transmission error has > misdirected the email, please > >notify the author by replying to this message. If > you are not the named > >recipient, you are not authorized to use, disclose, > distribute, copy, print > >or rely on this email, and should immediately > delete it from your computer. > > > > > >-Original Message- > >From: gab S.E jones > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 5:48 AM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: switch default gateway question [7:72288] > > > >Basically I want to know how best to approach the > situation. Our network is > >all statically mapped no dynamic routing > > > >our switches(4506,3550,6509) are going to be > changed to a different address > >range. the switches can accept more than one > default gateway. > >The core routers addresses has to be changed to the > same subnet as the > >switches soon > > > >1)the switch old ip address is on a 11/8 address > pointing to the core > >router(interface) with a 11/8 address > >2)now the switch addresses are being changed to a > 10/16(subnetted) address > >and the default gateway has to point to the core > with a 10/16 address as > >well > > > >Myu approach was to > > > >1)configure the swith with another default pointing > to a 10/16 > >2)configure a secondary interface on
RE: switch default gateway question [7:72288]
Hi people, My sincere, sincere apologies that i didnt explain the situation more clearly. I deserve to get attacked. Have only started working on this customers network for a few days now Yes it is a flat network (thanks Fred). Have just started to review this customers network and still dont know all the details to fully yet(the customers dont either believe it or not) What I listed was a suggestion in which I asked if that way too would work which i have noticed is not a good idea even if it might work. My apologies Zsombor i mis quoted my self what I meant to say was you can use statics to load balance as well. e.g will load balance Ip route 100.5.0.0 255.255.0.0 100.0.1.1 Ip route 10.5.0.0 255.255.0.0 100.0.1.2 e.g will as a backup ip route 100.5.0.0 255.255.0.0 100.0.1.1 ip route 10.5.0.0 255.255.0.0 100.0.1.2 5 Fred that was the original plan I had in mind as well thanks. I was going to be moving the PC's that are all in one VLAN to a bunch of separate VLANs. I just implied on the poissibilty of using another default route to point to as another way of moving the pc's across as I have never done it that way before. hi Priscilla thanks for your input. I do know how you feel I find it frustrating as well when I dont understand questions. My apologies on mis-guidiance in my explaination as I just rushed it. I was told to just re-address the routers for this customer without any prior good knowledge of how the Lan team have gone about their design >Was the network all one big flat network with everything being addressed with 11.0.0.0/8 before? And the switches >really were just L2 switches? And now they are moving to subnets and using the switches as routers? this is correct Priscilla I thank everyone for thier input even if I didnt make myself clear regards, seun Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72465&t=72288 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: switch default gateway question [7:72288]
No reason to apologize so much! It was just a little confusing. The scary part is: "I was told to just re-address the routers for this customer without any prior good knowledge of how the Lan team have gone about their design." Now that's scary! Our engineers would be fired on the spot if they proposed some LAN design without taking into account the layer-3 migration plan... Fred Reimer - CCNA Eclipsys Corporation, 200 Ashford Center North, Atlanta, GA 30338 Phone: 404-847-5177 Cell: 770-490-3071 Pager: 888-260-2050 NOTICE; This email contains confidential or proprietary information which may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the named recipient(s). If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected the email, please notify the author by replying to this message. If you are not the named recipient, you are not authorized to use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email, and should immediately delete it from your computer. -Original Message- From: gab S.E jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 7:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: switch default gateway question [7:72288] Hi people, My sincere, sincere apologies that i didnt explain the situation more clearly. I deserve to get attacked. Have only started working on this customers network for a few days now Yes it is a flat network (thanks Fred). Have just started to review this customers network and still dont know all the details to fully yet(the customers dont either believe it or not) What I listed was a suggestion in which I asked if that way too would work which i have noticed is not a good idea even if it might work. My apologies Zsombor i mis quoted my self what I meant to say was you can use statics to load balance as well. e.g will load balance Ip route 100.5.0.0 255.255.0.0 100.0.1.1 Ip route 10.5.0.0 255.255.0.0 100.0.1.2 e.g will as a backup ip route 100.5.0.0 255.255.0.0 100.0.1.1 ip route 10.5.0.0 255.255.0.0 100.0.1.2 5 Fred that was the original plan I had in mind as well thanks. I was going to be moving the PC's that are all in one VLAN to a bunch of separate VLANs. I just implied on the poissibilty of using another default route to point to as another way of moving the pc's across as I have never done it that way before. hi Priscilla thanks for your input. I do know how you feel I find it frustrating as well when I dont understand questions. My apologies on mis-guidiance in my explaination as I just rushed it. I was told to just re-address the routers for this customer without any prior good knowledge of how the Lan team have gone about their design >Was the network all one big flat network with everything being addressed with 11.0.0.0/8 before? And the switches >really were just L2 switches? And now they are moving to subnets and using the switches as routers? this is correct Priscilla I thank everyone for thier input even if I didnt make myself clear regards, seun Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72481&t=72288 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
