Traylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wtraylor@ciscc:
co.com Subject: Re: subnet vs. Vlan
Sent by:
nobody@groups
tudy.com
07/20/00
The simple way to think about it is this: VLAN = Subnet. If you do it any
other way you are defeating the purpose of using VLANs (except , of course,
for the earlier example I gave).
Tony
---
Unfortunately that isn't the case anymore. If you look at what companies
like Extreme are doing in
]On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2000 9:13 AM
To: Walker Traylor
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: subnet vs. Vlan
I beg to differ on this one. I'm currently dealing with a network that has
4 VLANs. Two of those VLANs use multiple subnets. the only thin
ren E Young
Network Engineer
ELF Technologies, Inc
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Desk: 206-770-4035
Pager: 206-994-4514
Walker
Traylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wtraylor@ciscc:
co.com Sub
What will probably happen is that not all hosts will get broadcasts.
jeongwoo park wrote:
HI all
I have a question.
Cisco recommends that there be one-to-one relationship
between ip subnets and Vlans.
When the number of devices on a Vlan exceeds the
number of host ip addresses per
You must use a router between any networks, even if they are on the same
VLAN. You do not need a router to merely connect VLANS if they are on
the same network. However, you could just make them just one VLAN in
that case.
--Walker
jeongwoo park wrote:
HI all
I have a question.
Cisco
6 matches
Mail list logo
