Thank you for the information. I am stuggling with the use/purpose of VLANs
and you've answered some questions for me.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Neiberger) wrote:
A VLAN is, by definition, a separate subnet. If you decided to separate a
single LAN into two VLANs,
To: CISCO_GroupStudy List (E-mail)
Subject: RE: why is routing needed with VLANs - ARP?
What I'm saying is that, before we implement VLANs, we have a flat
address space, with obviously, no routing.
Now, suppose that I arbitrarily decide not to forward broadcasts out
ports 6-10 through some IOS command.
Everything
Sorry, I was trying to make a puzzle with the words, instead I did a lot of noise in
the line, looks like I have to improve my language!
Peter Van Oene wrote:
To me, there is no concept of a layer three VLAN. If you chose to route IP, you
need a router, whether you have dynamic or
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 6:11 AM
To: 'Bob Vance'
Cc: CISCO_GroupStudy List (E-mail)
Subject: RE: why is routing needed with VLANs - ARP?
Because VLANs are what they are, virtual lans,
in other words many lan segments (self contained
broadcast domains). We're trying to
VLANs can be defined by MAC address or IP address.
When MAC address is used, you have a layer 2 VLAN, when IP address is used you have a
layer 3 VLAN and a router is needed.
Layer 2 VLANs mostly used for filtering (never done, I supose is a hard work to
mantain)
Peter Van Oene wrote:
Just
To me, there is no concept of a layer three VLAN. If you chose to route IP, you need
a router, whether you have dynamic or statically configured broadcast scopes is fully
irrelevant. If you are talking about dynamic VLAN membership based on IP address (or
protocol for that matter), then I
Actually not. Collision domains have a layer 1 scope (assuming CSMA/CD media), and
broadcast domains a layer 2 scope.
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 1/18/2001 at 9:39 AM Lowell Sharrah wrote:
are we talking about the difference between collision domains and broadcast domains?
ary 18, 2001 8:08 AM
To: Ruben Arias; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: why is routing needed with VLANs
To me, there is no concept of a layer three VLAN. If you chose to route
IP, you need a router, whether you have dynamic or statically configured
broadcast scopes is fully irrelevant.
First of all, if I send this twice, excuse me...I am trying out outlook
express and I am not sure it is sending anything...but I have a couple of
questions and comments.
Questions:
So the only reason vlans are implemented then is for a "type of subnet" that
controls broadcasts from a layer
]
Subject: RE: why is routing needed with VLANs
Comments Inline
At 11:43 AM 1/16/01 -0600, you wrote:
Hmm, I think I know what the question is, however I don't really have an
answer right now if I'm right.
Picture two different scenarios:
1
Workstation A, B and C are connected to a switch
t: RE: why is routing needed with VLANs - ARP?
What I'm saying is that, before we implement VLANs, we have a flat
address space, with obviously, no routing.
Now, suppose that I arbitrarily decide not to forward broadcasts out
ports 6-10 through some IOS command.
Everything will still work qui
ubject: RE: why is routing needed with VLANs - ARP?
What I'm saying is that, before we implement VLANs, we have a flat
address space, with obviously, no routing.
Now, suppose that I arbitrarily decide not to forward broadcasts out
ports 6-10 through some IOS command.
Everything will still work qui
Just for clarity, VLAN's are a layer 2 concept and IP is of course a layer 3 (please
do not start with the "but what layer is arp again" :)
Despite subnets and VLAN's generally happening on a 1:1 basis in a lot of theoretical
and practical discussions, the two concepts are totally unrelated
=
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Peter Van Oene
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 12:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: why is routing needed with VLANs
Just for clarity, VLAN's
Oene
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 12:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: why is routing needed with VLANs
Just for clarity, VLAN's are a layer 2 concept and IP is of course a
layer 3 (please do not start with the "but what layer is arp again" :)
Despite subnets and VLAN's
If I understand your question correctlyhere's a response
A router operates at Layer 3 while all the switching you are discussing =
is
happening at Layer 2. In order for a switch to forward packets to any =
VLAN
it would have to also re-write the packet so that he destination =
Keep in mind that seperate VLANs will be seperate subnets. Which means
that by default a host will encapsulate any IP packet destined for a
different VLAN within an ethernet packet with a destination MAC address of
the default gateway. So a layer 2 switch will never get the chance to try
A VLAN is, by definition, a separate subnet. If you decided to separate a
single LAN into two VLANs, you'll have to change your addressing scheme.
Once you've done that, you have to route to get from one subnet to the
other. I don't even like the term "VLAN". The very term seems to cause a
://www.oledrews.com/job
-Original Message-
From: Curtis Call [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 11:20 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: why is routing needed with VLANs
Keep in mind that seperate VLANs will be seperate subnets. Which means
What I'm saying is that, before we implement VLANs, we have a flat
address space, with obviously, no routing.
Now, suppose that I arbitrarily decide not to forward broadcasts out
ports 6-10 through some IOS command.
Everything will still work quite happily (except anything relying on
those
: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 12:48 PM
To: Bob Vance; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: why is routing needed with VLANs
A VLAN is, by definition, a separate subnet. If you decided to separate
a
single LAN into two VLANs, you'll have to change your addressing scheme.
Once you've done that, you have to route
A VLAN is, by definition, a separate subnet. If you decided to separate a
single LAN into two VLANs, you'll have to change your addressing scheme.
Once you've done that, you have to route to get from one subnet to the
other. I don't even like the term "VLAN". The very term seems to cause a
]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 12:48 PM
To: Bob Vance; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: why is routing needed with VLANs
A VLAN is, by definition, a separate subnet. If you decided to separate
a
single LAN into two VLANs, you'll have to change your addressing scheme.
Once you've done that, you
ECTED]
Subject: Re: why is routing needed with VLANs
A VLAN is, by definition, a separate subnet. If you decided to separate
a
single LAN into two VLANs, you'll have to change your addressing scheme.
Once you've done that, you have to route to get from one subnet to the
other
At 12:28 PM 1/16/2001 -0600, Ole Drews Jensen wrote:
Now, with all devices at that office connecting to a cheap hub, wouldn't
this work okay, or would the best thing be to statically NAT 214.100.200.70
to a dedicated address on the 192.168.20.0 network which then is assigned
the printer?
You
w.oledrews.com/job
-Original Message-
From: Bob Vance [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 11:58 AM
To: CISCO_GroupStudy List (E-mail)
Subject: RE: why is routing needed with VLANs
Thanks.
A VLAN is, by definition, a separate subnet.
Well, not by any definition
Inside users would use the inside IP for the printer.
--
Jason Roysdon, CCNP/CCDP, MCSE, CNA, Network+, A+
List email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage: http://jason.artoo.net/
Cisco resources: http://r2cisco.artoo.net/
"Brian Hartsfield" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL
Comments Inline
At 11:43 AM 1/16/01 -0600, you wrote:
Hmm, I think I know what the question is, however I don't really have an
answer right now if I'm right.
Picture two different scenarios:
1
Workstation A, B and C are connected to a switch that IS NOT running VLAN,
hence they are in the
28 matches
Mail list logo
