Why can't the L3 switches be run as L2 switches (ignoring the routing capabilities) in that situation? If those two switches were connected in that case, then connected to the core, wouldn't that solve the problem of a gateway being 3 or 4 L3 switches away?
-----Original Message----- From: Priscilla Oppenheimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 18 February 2003 9:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Understanding VLANs - how they remove the physical [7:63173] Stephen Hoover wrote: > > back to switch A to get his routing to > the servers? > Why would you EVER want a network configured this way?? Or even > worse, what > if your respective gateway was 3 or 4 L3 switches away? Your gateway can't be any L3 switches (routers) away. It has to be on your LAN. It has to be in your subnet. It has to be in your broadcast domain. It has to be in your VLAN. For one thing, a host ARPs for its default gateway. ARP uses broadcast. I just noticed your comment and wanted to add my comment. Without being able to decode your drawing, it's hard to tell exactly how to answer, but I'm just trying to get you to think about what really happens to packets on a campus network. The network design you're considering isn't just impractical. It won't work, if I understand it correctly. Priscilla > That > just doesn't > seem practical to me. > > > Thanks! > Stephen Hoover > Dallas, Texas Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=63196&t=63196 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
