EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 11:58 AM
To: Lupi, Guy; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: vlan urgent [7:74955]
Theoretically, you don't even need a switch in the middle. If these are
ISP-connected routers, and the firewall is doing the NAT, then the three
routers must be do
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: Lupi, Guy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 9:56 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: vlan urgent [7:
The first thing I would do is determine whether or not you need to load
share for outbound bandwidth. Typically an enterprise will have a lot more
inbound traffic than outbound traffic, so if one of the circuits exceeds
your outbound bandwidth needs by 30% or more, you may not need to load share
a
Dennis,
Tried IpExpert 3550 studydoc? Some base material. (their online study site,
wahat was it again)
Do you have partner e-learning access? I have, but cannot search it from
this customer site... Maybe some nice docs there.
I'll continue looking around.
Martijn Jansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
""simon watson"" wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hi
>
> Some how I was thinking VLAN tagging was something more than just
"Trunking"
> in Cisco talk,as you can guess I'm pretty rusty when it comes to
switching.I
> have another question.Look at the example below.
>
>
>
""simon watson"" wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hi
>
> Some how I was thinking VLAN tagging was something more than just
"Trunking"
> in Cisco talk,as you can guess I'm pretty rusty when it comes to
switching.I
> have another question.Look at the example below.
>
>
>
Hi,
Concerning your question if you need to configure trunking on the router
also - the answer is that it depends on your network topology and
configuration.
If your router needs to do the routing between the VLANs you will probably
need the tagging. By the way this kind of configuration is calle
""simon watson"" wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hi Guys
>
> A client wants a Cat 3550 configured for VLAN tagging, I have not done one
> of these before so how do I configure the switch, also there is a Cisco
2600
> router also connected to the switch.Do I need to configure the router t
I'll take a stab since I just finished reading that in the CCNP switching
manual and it'll be a good test :)
It depends on the setup eg, whether or not there's to be multiple vlans and,
if so, whether or not the two vlans are to communicate etc.
On the router you need to configure a subinterface
Here is a plain sample of a 3550 trunk config on one side...
interface FastEthernet 0/24
switchport trunk encapsulation isl
switchport trunk allowed vlan 1-158,160-4094
switchport mod
John,
This is from one my 6509's with an MSFC router module, which is
similar to your 4006...we do use the trunk allow to put our trunks
in the native vlan and the vlans for data/voice...we also use portfast
bpdu-guard on the access ports in the floor switches..it stops the potential
of loops in t
Larry Letterman
> Network Engineer
> Cisco Systems
>
>
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> > Thomas N.
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 12:18 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> &g
t: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 12:18 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: VLAN loop problem [7:66656]
>
>
> What does "portfast bpdu-guard" do? Does it prevent interfaces with
> portfast enabled from causing the loop in my scenario?
>
>
> ""
What does "portfast bpdu-guard" do? Does it prevent interfaces with
portfast enabled from causing the loop in my scenario?
""Larry Letterman"" wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> port mac address security might work, altho its a lot of admin
> overhead..are you running portfast bpdu-guar
No, we don't have portfast bpdu-guard enabled. What does it do? Thanks
Larry!
Thomas
""Larry Letterman"" wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> port mac address security might work, altho its a lot of admin
> overhead..are you running portfast bpdu-guard on the access ports?
>
>
> Larry Le
port mac address security might work, altho its a lot of admin
overhead..are you running portfast bpdu-guard on the access ports?
Larry Letterman
Network Engineer
Cisco Systems
- Original Message -
From: Thomas N.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 8:14 PM
Sub
Whie I agree that by compriming the switch, the intruder can bypass the
firewall, I dont feel that it is of siginificant concern to warrant the
purchase of an addiitianal switch to seperate the two.
The big drive here is that you must secure your switch at L2, and if you do
so, I feel that is is p
We deploy 2620/2621 in our microwave network with Catalyst 1912/1924 to 'fan
out' via
VLANs, but we just use the aux port on the 26xx to reverse telnet to the
19xx, rather
than assigning an IP address to the switch.
I have seen several situations where ARP requests leak across VLANs on
29xx/35
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Paulo Roque wrote:
> I usually separate firewall zone with different physical LAN in different
> switches.
> What do you think of separating firewall zone with VLANs in the same
> switch/chassis?
Generally a very bad idea! I fully agree with physical seperation.
Because if i
ACL's should still work on the router. It will treat a vlan
interface similarly just like a regular L3 interface.
Larry Letterman
Network Engineer
Cisco Systems
- Original Message -
From: "Skarphedinsson Arni V."
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 8:47 AM
Subject: VLAN Trunking + Acc
No, subinterfaces on a trunked port fully support acl's in the same
manner as physical interfaces. Same for other services such as NAT,
CBAC, policy routing, etc.
HTH,
Kent
On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 11:47, Skarphedinsson Arni V. wrote:
> Hi
>
> When using vlan trunking from a router, for example i
By default a trunk port will carry all VLANs, which it will need to do in
the setup you have illustrated. If you prune the other VLANs at the second
switch, the users in VLANs 3 and 4 on the third switch will be cut off.
""Happy World"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED].
M.C. van den Bovenkamp wrote:
> switchport mode trunk
> switchport trunk native vlan
>
> That will 802.1Q tag all frames except those in vlan .
>
> You can't have more than one untagged VLAN.
OK, groupstudy doesn't like angle brackets; forgot about that. That
would be 'switchport trunk native
CiscoNewbie wrote:
> hi. on a cisco2950, how can I configure a port to be tagged for one vlan
> and untagged for another? Please give me sample. thanks.
switchport mode trunk
switchport trunk native vlan
That will 802.1Q tag all frames except those in vlan .
You can't have more than one unt
Thanks all but it does not support the interface range command so I had to
do it thru the gui!
-Original Message-
From: Larry Letterman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 5:45 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: vlan on a 3548 catalyst [7:61398]
Its not
If you use the web interface you can.
-Original Message-
From: Bob Perez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 20 January 2003 20:05
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: vlan on a 3548 catalyst [7:61393]
Can I assign multiple ports to a vlan in one swoop rather than each one
individually?
IOS on a
- Original Message -
From: "MADMAN"
To:
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: vlan on a 3548 catalyst [7:61398]
> I don't have a 3548 to look at but does it supoort the
"interface
> range" command? if so yes you do have the "one swoop
Bob
I think the command you want is
int range first -last
in global config mode.
eg
switch# config term
switch(config)# interface range fastethernet0/1 -fastethernet0/12
(or something similar as I dont have an IOS switch to hand right now)
Then just configure the
I don't have a 3548 to look at but does it supoort the "interface
range" command? if so yes you do have the "one swoop" capability.
Dave
Robert Perez wrote:
> "Bob Perez" wrote in message news:...
>
>>Can I assign multiple ports to a vlan in one swoop rather than each
>>one individually?
Only if your IOS version supports the "interface range" command. I know
it's on our 2950's and 3550's. Not sure about the 3500XL.
Ken
>>> "Bob Perez" 01/20/03 12:04PM >>>
Can I assign multiple ports to a vlan in one swoop rather than each
one
individually?
IOS on a 3548XL
Message Posted a
Correct, The 2 lans across the wan are nothing more than 2 networks
with layer 3
router connections connecting them together. The vlan's are only
significant at the
local lan level to the host in the switch.
Larry
Thomas N. wrote:
>Hi Larry,
>
>I am using trunking on the LAN side of the rout
Hi Larry,
I am using trunking on the LAN side of the routers to route between VLANs.
However, WAN interfaces of these routers are not configured as trunk. The
WAN link is just connected using a different subnet. And no, I don't use
bridging. So if VLAN is just local significant, should it not b
I would think that you can bridge them with IRB/CRB but the vlan id
would not be
an issue since the connections are not using isl/dot1q trunking. You
would basically
be making a flat network across the wan links. The vlan information
will only propagate
across trunk links that pass the vlan id
Larry Letterman wrote:
>
> Not unless the routers were using trunking and it does not
> sound like
> they are...
> The L3 links to each lan switch dont know anything about the
> vlan .
>
> Larry
>
Larry,
Just curious... Can VLANs be bridged over a bridge group that includes
serial WAN connect
Not unless the routers were using trunking and it does not sound like
they are...
The L3 links to each lan switch dont know anything about the vlan .
Larry
Thomas N. wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>I am wondering if the VLAN number is valid locally on a LAN only or it goes
>across the WAN link? In my sce
Unless you're doing some kind of bridging or IRB, this won't be a problem.
Even then, I'm not sure it would necessarily be a problem. In a "normal"
topology, VLANs are locally significant.
Thomas N. wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I am wondering if the VLAN number is valid locally on a LAN
> only or
""pauldongso"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> thanks for your response.
> If ISL and 802.1q frame header has no space for vlan name, it means
> doesn't matter if Switch A and B are within the same VTP domain or not,
> whatever vtp modes they are on, as long as the
thanks for your response.
If ISL and 802.1q frame header has no space for vlan name, it means
doesn't matter if Switch A and B are within the same VTP domain or not,
whatever vtp modes they are on, as long as the vlan number is the same,
vlan name does not matter.
The Long and Winding Road wrot
""pauldongso"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi All,
>
> come across this scenario:
>
> Switch A - switch B
> (vtp wally) trunk (vtp world)
> | |
> | |
> PC 1
issue the command ..set spantree root vlan x,x,x
set spantree root sec vlan x,x,x
you dont need to adjust the priorities..
I had that in my data center until recently when I went
to layer 3 design only...I got tired of spantree issues taking
down servers...
Good luck with it.
Yes routing will solve the problem. Also the Cisco, or formerly Cisco
8110 supports a larger enet packet size. The problem with the tagged
frames is that they look like giants, >1518 bytes.
Dave
"Arni V. Skarphedinsson" wrote:
>
> I have the following problem,
>
> I have two locations conn
How about two PVCs in the ATM?
> -Original Message-
> From: Arni V. Skarphedinsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 10:25 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: VLan encap. over WAN [7:52613]
>
>
> I have the following problem,
>
> I have two locations con
Create a 'bridge-group' by issuing the command on the interfaces you want to
span.
-Original Message-
From: Arni V. Skarphedinsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 11:25 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: VLan encap. over WAN [7:52613]
I have the following
John Brandis wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> What type of frame tagging Protocol is best for Gigabit
> Ethernet Fiber
> Interfaces. I understand that ISL is fine for standard fast
> ethernet ,
> however .10 is perhaps better for this situation.
Do you mean 802.10?? That was used for VLAN tagging on
AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: VLAN Leaking [7:50404]
That would explain why I see traffic on my VLAN that should be on a
different VLAN.
>>> "Turpin, Mark" 08/01/02 08:55AM >>>
Lore has it that changing the default vlan can result in leaking.
Real life exper
That would explain why I see traffic on my VLAN that should be on a
different VLAN.
>>> "Turpin, Mark" 08/01/02 08:55AM >>>
Lore has it that changing the default vlan can result in leaking.
Real life experiences?
-Mark
-Original Message-
From: MADMAN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: T
Well there's some information missing. I see you only have 8 gig
ports, but where do VLANs come into play there? We need more
information.
Mike W.
"John Brandis" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> G'day all.
>
> Got a question regarding VLAN trunking i
VTP - is only used to disseminate information among switches in the
same VTP domain - or manage VLAN configurations. Setting a switch as a
server allows you to add/delete/modify VLAN's from that switch for the
entire VTP domain. If the VTP domain server dies :( no problem, your domain
will be fine
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, John Brandis wrote:
> >From here, can I use as the access point of my network, other lower end
> catalyst switchs, and just plug them into their distribution points for
each
> VLAN at my Distribution layer,,,or does each access layer switch need to be
> fully configured as a
John, where in Sydney are you?
If you plug a switch or hub directly of a Distribution switch, there needs
to be no configured VLAN information (such as VTP) configured on the end
switch, provided you plug your switch/hub into a VLAN defined port on the
distry switch, that will work fine, however
Yes you can do this but what you probably forgot to do was shutdown
interface vlan 1. Until you shutdown vlan 1 the other vlan you created
will not come up.
Dave
Jeff Harris wrote:
>
> Does anyone know if you can use a VLAN interface for management on an
> IOS-based switch if said VLAN was l
Does anyone know if you can use a VLAN interface for management on an
IOS-based switch if said VLAN was learned via VTP? I was unable to set it up
that way awhile back. I have ran into this awhile back and never did get to
troubleshoot it.
The switch in question was a 3524XL. The VTP server was a
It's not clear what your asking but the switch inband management ip
address and the VTP domain have nothing to do with each other.
Dave
Edward Sohn wrote:
>
> hey all
>
> i've got a question, that seems logical enough, but I can't find any
> explanation/answer for it anywhere on CCO or Cis
SC0 can be placed in any VLAN you specify. All ports default to VLAN 1 so
putting it there may not be prudent depending on your specific security
needs. For example, I have used VLAN 999 in DMZs before as the "managment
rail" for the switches.
HTH
Darren
At 02:13 PM 5/14/2002 -0400, Chris Cha
I second that.
Theo
"Sean Knox"
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
05/04/2002 09:52 AM
Please respond to "Sean Knox"
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:RE: VLAN Load balancing [7:43265]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but VLAN prior
Do mean if I have 2 6509 with MSFC2/PFC2's, I
configure STP for say odd vlans to go to the first MSFC and EVEN
VLAN's to the SECOND MSFC ? This is done all the time.. read up on "MISTP"
on cco. Basically you "map vlans to instances of spanning tree protocol"
also you can use the older way of sett
;> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
>> MADMAN
>> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 3:05 PM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: VLAN Load balancing [7:43265]
>>
>>
>> Yes. An example
n another.
>
> Sean
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> > MADMAN
> > Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 3:05 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: VLAN Load balancing [7:43265]
> >
>
ent: Friday, May 03, 2002 5:05 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: VLAN Load balancing [7:43265]
>
>
> Yes. An example would be two core 6500 trunked together. You have
> switches in the closets, one uplink to 6500A the other to 6500B. Set
> priority on even VLAN/s t
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> MADMAN
> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 3:05 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: VLAN Load balancing [7:43265]
>
>
> Yes. An example would be two core 6500 trunked together. You have
> switches in the closets, one uplink to 6500
Care to share those configs?
""Larry Letterman"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> yes..we use load balancing, if you call it that, in data centers..
>
> Larry Letterman
> Cisco Systems
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> - Original Message -
> From: "Steven A. Ridder"
>
--
RFC 1149 Compliant.
Get in my head:
http://sar.dynu.com
""Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> At 5:04 PM -0400 5/3/02, Steven A. Ridder wrote:
> >Does anyone do any VLAN load balancing via STP in the real world? I've
> >never seen it yet, a
Yes. An example would be two core 6500 trunked together. You have
switches in the closets, one uplink to 6500A the other to 6500B. Set
priority on even VLAN/s to A odd to B.
Dave
"Steven A. Ridder" wrote:
>
> Does anyone do any VLAN load balancing via STP in the real world? I've
> never s
yes..we use load balancing, if you call it that, in data centers..
Larry Letterman
Cisco Systems
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Steven A. Ridder"
To:
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 2:04 PM
Subject: VLAN Load balancing [7:43265]
> Does anyone do any VLAN load balancing via S
At 5:04 PM -0400 5/3/02, Steven A. Ridder wrote:
>Does anyone do any VLAN load balancing via STP in the real world? I've
>never seen it yet, and am just curious if it's ever done.
Could you clarify a bit more what you are trying to do? 802.1D
specifically picks a single path, which is the antit
So based on this does this mean that 802.1q is both the vlan protocol as
well as the frame-tagging protocol compared to Cisco's VTP and ISL?
Thanks
>From: "J-B" >Reply-To: "J-B" >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re:
VLAN protocol b/w Cisco and non-Cisco s
sam
sneed
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 3:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: VLAN protocol b/w Cisco and non-Cisco switches? [7:39673]
802.1q should be used between cisco amd noncisco devices.
""Cisco Nuts"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED
You would want to use 802.1q. But I think you would need to manually make
sure that each switch had the appropriate VLANs on them (i.e. manually do
the job of VTP).
Mike W.
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=39682&t=39673
--
802.1q should be used between cisco amd noncisco devices.
""Cisco Nuts"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hello,What is the VLAN protocol that can runs between a Cisco and a
> non-Cisco switch? I understand that VTP is the protocol if only running
> Cisco switche
o re-exam my CCNA.)
-Original Message-
From: Mark Odette II [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 5:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: vlan line protocol down [7:39409]
Without any experience with this Switch, I can only guess at this
possibility:
Did you pr
Without any experience with this Switch, I can only guess at this
possibility:
Did you program the VLAN config from a console port??
If so, Do you have anything plugged into ANY of the FastEthernet ports??
If not, try plugging a workstation, laptop, or whatever type of node that
suits your fancy
On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Prabhu K. wrote:
> By default, broadcasts for a VLAN are sent to every switch that as a
> trunk link that carries the VLAN, is it true?
Correct. If you have three switches all trunked together, and vlan 12 has
four ports on only one of the switches, broadcasts on vlan 12 w
Yep, this is true, which is why judicious pruning can be
helpful from time to time.
For instance, let's say you have a trunk link between to
switches that is carrying VLAN1, VLAN2, and VLAN3. However, on
the second switch you only have users in VLAN1 and VLAN2, none
in VLAN3. You discover
Will,
I am trying to find the updated IOS on Cisco's web
site. From the documentation on Cisco's web Site you
should be able to upgrade the switch to the EN version
by updating the IOS software. Also from my
understanding and since the switch is for LAB and not
business use, you should be able
You will also need IP-Plus IOS for the trunking feature on the 2600.
Rik
-Original Message-
From: Erick B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 8:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: VLan Ooops Part 2 [7:34687]
802.1q (dot1q) works on 10meg interfaces. I&#
802.1q (dot1q) works on 10meg interfaces. I'm doing it
on a 2600 here...
--- Nisus wrote:
> Ok so I understand the trunk feature now after
> talking to a good CCIE friend
> of mine.
>
> (he runs http://www.IPexpert.net shameless plug)
>
> And he explained the trunking feature.
>
> Here is my
Yes with some work. You need to be able to create a trunk port on both the
switch and the router's interface. The trunk on the switch needs to have
encapsulation set (if required) and whatever VLANs included that you want to
pass to the router. On the router side, you would need set the encapsulat
I believe it does do trunking still.
""Nisus"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ok so I understand the trunk feature now after talking to a good CCIE
friend
> of mine.
>
> (he runs http://www.IPexpert.net shameless plug)
>
> And he explained the trunking feature.
>
check into making that port a trunkisl, 802.1q (isl=cisco proprietary,
q=standard)
-Original Message-
From: Nisus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 3:34 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: VLan Ooops [7:34680]
Hello All,
I have been posting questio
if it's a trunk.
""Nisus"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hello All,
>
> I have been posting questions about VLans and I think I may have
not
> worded the question right.
>
> If I have multiple VLans can they all go out the uplink port on my switch
to
> my
The 261x series routers do not support trunking. 262x routers with the
Plus feature-set do, but that won't help much here.
- Tom
On Tue, 05 Feb 2002 12:51:18 -0500, Don Nguyen wrote:
> If I'm reading your question correctly, the link between your router and
> switch would be a trunk line. You
Doh, I assumed all of the 2600 series routers had ports capable of trunking,
forgot you need ports capable of 100mb in order to trunk =P
Don
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=34486&t=34471
--
FAQ, list archives, and
Steven,
I am not 100% clear on the question that you have asked. To get two VLANs
communicated to the 2610 router would require trunking both the port on
the switch and the port on the router. Unfortunately the 261x routers do
not support trunking. The 262x routers do (with the Plus feature se
If I'm reading your question correctly, the link between your router and
switch would be a trunk line. You would have to set the 2610's eth0 up with
subinterfaces to route your VLAN, this is assuming you don't have a VLAN
routing capable device somewhere else in your network already. This will
a
I have a page with 3 VLAN links from Cisco already listed.
http://www.packetattack.com/cisco_documents.html
The links are at the bottom on the left side. This should give you a good
start. I also have a tutorial but it's for the 2900 series but it might be
worth your while to bookmark it.
MikeS
Steve,
I am not sure how much you know about VLAN configuration and inter-VLAN
communication you know. In your case, you could create a management VLAN and
a user VLAN and use the router for inter-VLAN routing. Maybe you can try
this link:
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/cat5
Unless you have a very specific need for it, I would not waste the time
wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Greetings all,
>
> Just for clarification purposes, are there any advantages/disadvantages
> or a specific purpose to change the mtu size for a vlan(Ethernet V
Nabil, in my opinion it would not be to any advantage. Seems like more
administrative overhead to keep up with.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Greetings all,
>
>Just for clarification purposes, are there any advantages/disadvantages
>or a specific purpose to change the mtu size for a vlan(Et
Have you checked to make sure all of the ports that your clients and servers
are setting in are in both VLANs?
Have you enabled Port Fast on the client ports?
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=32052&t=31994
--
FAQ, l
There's a huge difference between the two. In fact, they are
unrelated.
Every switch has its own IP address for management purposes,
which obviously must reside in some VLAN. By default, the
management VLAN is VLAN1. In your first example, you made
VLAN4 the management VLAN, which is why V
A Native VLAN is used for sending and receiving untagged traffic on the
trunk port.
A Native VLAN Mismatch means that the trunk ports on each side are not
configured to use the same native vlan.
-Original Message-
From: James [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 1
on a trunk you have a native VLAN which is 1 by default. Evidently
your native VLANs don't match.
C6509> (enable) sh trunk
* - indicates vtp domain mismatch
Port Mode Encapsulation StatusNative vlan
--- - ---
1/2 d
Every client VLAN will need its' own IPX network number and appropriate
frame encapsulation type.
int vlan 10
ip address 10.10.10.2 255.255.255.0
standby 10 ip 10.10.10.1
standby 10 prior 110 pre
ipx network 10 encapsulation sap
int vlan 11
ip address 10.10.11.2 255.255.255.0
I would agree. The clients can find the servers because they'll do a GNS
(GetNearestServer) request, and the routers should be able to answer that
request with the info the client needs.
Mike W.
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=24667&t=24641
The config is correct, although you need to find out what IPX encapsulation
is. Probably 802.2. I would put the commands in this way;
interface vlan 2
ip address ..
ipx network 101 encapsulation sap
interface vlan 3
ip address
ipx network 102 encapsul
As with most design issues, a lot of the answer will depend on individual
circumstances.
Including, but certainly not limited to:
Cost
Size of environment
Traffic Flow
Security Concerns
Summed up as what is your "Overall Goal"
If your primary conc
I understand your "traffic flow" perspective, but I must state that it is
not in alignment with modern data flow. That vast majority of traffic
nowadays seems to be moving toward "Enterprise applications" i.e.
"PeopleSoft", "LotusNotes", "Oracle Financials" located on hosts that serve
multiple ap
On Jan 22, 5:54pm, "Circusnuts" wrote:
}
} I don't believe your talking that much of a savings (between the 2900 &
} 3500). The 3500 wills scale to Gig uplink , plus the 2900's EOL's in
} October. The 3500's will also enforce QOS, although this in not a concern
} in my application of the switch
HEre is an example, not off of a router but if you want you can type
it into one and it will work.
int s0
ip add 1.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
frame-relay map-ip 1.1.1.2 16
encap frame
!
inter ser 0.1 point-to-point
ip address 2.2.2.1 255.255.255.0
frame-relay interface-dlci 17
This woul
My post we regarding using an IP on the interface and a subinterface for
Frame Relay, as mentioned by MADMAN But thanks for the explanation =)
Mike W.
"John Neiberger" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You can have an IP address on the main interface as well a
1 - 100 of 274 matches
Mail list logo
