x27;t be killing the
CPU with route lookups in any case.
HTH
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 12:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: VLAN's and Routers [7:2534]
On 2 May 2001 02:45:45 -04
On 2 May 2001 02:45:45 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Bill Pearch")
wrote:
>This is a Cisco type email list. There IS a Cisco answer.
And that's what I'm after, was just exploring other possibilities.
Now I need to decide what type of router to purchase; ~150 users split
between 4-6 VLAN's.
Thanks
ll gather round and face the facts:
This is a Cisco type email list. There IS a Cisco answer.
TTFN,
Bill 'layer 4 and up is for end users' Pearch, Anchorage AK
-Original Message-
From: Sammi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 7:35 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
S
Personally I think you'd be better off getting a router.
At 09:35 AM 5/1/01, you wrote:
>Are dual NIC's feasible? Seems on the surface to be cheaper and more
>straightforward but haven't seen it mentioned so I may be missing
>something.
>I can actually give each department their own server but ac
Are dual NIC's feasible? Seems on the surface to be cheaper and more
straightforward but haven't seen it mentioned so I may be missing
something.
I can actually give each department their own server but accessing the
email server would present problems.
On 1 May 2001 10:47:35 -0400, [EMAIL PROTEC
You could buy a special NIC card for your server that can handle ISL
encapsulated frames. It might be cheaper to buy a router though since I
don't think the lower end switches support ISL anyway.
At 12:25 PM 4/30/01, you wrote:
>Thanks all, that clarifies somewhat.
>
>On 30 Apr 2001 14:06:09 -
On 30 Apr 2001 15:06:15 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Howard C. Berkowitz")
wrote:
>>Thanks all, that clarifies somewhat.
>>
>>On 30 Apr 2001 14:06:09 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Karen E Young")
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Usually there needs to be some form of communication
>>>between VLANS though, so practica
>Thanks all, that clarifies somewhat.
>
>On 30 Apr 2001 14:06:09 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Karen E Young")
>wrote:
>
>> Usually there needs to be some form of communication
>>between VLANS though, so practically speaking you do need a router.
>
>What I would like to do is create broadcast domain
Thanks all, that clarifies somewhat.
On 30 Apr 2001 14:06:09 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Karen E Young")
wrote:
> Usually there needs to be some form of communication
>between VLANS though, so practically speaking you do need a router.
What I would like to do is create broadcast domains for diff
Sammi,
You can always create VLANs without a router, you just can't move traffic
between them. If you have a situation where you have two networks that exist
in the same location but need to be kept strictly seperate (such as a
production and a test network) then it isn't necessarily a bad thing
Just think of VLANs as normal broadcast domains. One routes between
broadcast domains. Your config does not create an overlap between the
VLANs, but rather between the IP subnets. To properly route between
broadcast domains, you must have unique IP subnets that do not overlap.
Pete
*
Hi Sammi,
You can create
10.200.1.x/24 as VLAN 1
10.200.2.x/24 as VLAN 2
this will isolate the broadcast within the VLAN.
You can't create
10.200.1.x/16 as VLAN 1
10.200.2.x/16 or /24 as VLAN 2
because VLAN 2 will become part of VLAN 1, does not serve the purpose of
having VLAN configuration
12 matches
Mail list logo
