From: emad (emad@zakq8.com)
Date: Thu Aug 28 2003 - 04:58:12 GMT-3
Then , I will put all sites in one subnet and different vlans , what is
the benefit from applying vlan here at this time , and I think I should
define vlan interfaces on the core switch and give them IPs , how can I
put IP on a L3 device to route between and all these IPs are in the same
subnet , or I shouldn't define vlan interfaces at all on the core ,
Please when proposing an idea explain it in more details for me
thanx
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Bartlett [mailto:gary.bartlett@consultant.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 10:51 AM
To: emad; 'Larry Letterman'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Vlan design vs. subnet distribution
In a case like that you just need to setup a trunk, traffic will
automaticly pass within the same vlan across all sites
----- Original Message -----
From: "emad" <emad@zakq8.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 10:37:27 +0300
To: "''Larry Letterman''" <lletterm@cisco.com>, "''Gary Bartlett''"
<gary.bartlett@consultant.com>, <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Subject: RE: Vlan design vs. subnet distribution
>
> The case exactly is I have three or more sites connected through edge
> switch to the core switch (4507) through fiber links but all these
sites
> share the subnet 172.30.16.0 mask 255.255.248.0 , how can I implement
> vlans between these sites with the existing subnet range right there.
>
> Please advice
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: emad [mailto:emad@zakq8.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 10:22 AM
> To: 'Larry Letterman'; 'Gary Bartlett'; 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
> Subject: RE: Vlan design vs. subnet distribution
> Importance: High
>
> Larry , u didn't get my point at all
> All these sites are connected by fiber to the core switch , all the
> network around are flat network (one broadcast domain) no L3 routers
in
> between , u got it now?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Letterman [mailto:lletterm@cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 10:19 AM
> To: 'Gary Bartlett'; 'emad'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: Vlan design vs. subnet distribution
>
> I raelly don't see what vlans have to do with connecting remote
> Sites, since most remotes are connected by routers with L3 subnets
> Using /30 space. The most common way of connecting remotes to the main
> Site on one subnet would be multipoint frame...
>
>
> Larry Letterman
> Cisco Systems
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
Of
> Gary Bartlett
> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 12:14 AM
> To: emad; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: Vlan design vs. subnet distribution
>
>
> Well, I think you were on the right track by saying that for routing
> purpoces it wouldn't work to well if you had multiple sites
advertiseing
> the same subnet, unless the subnets were NATed by the router as it was
> advertised to the rest of the network...
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "emad" <emad@zakq8.com>
> Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 09:59:31 +0300
> To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Subject: Vlan design vs. subnet distribution
>
> > Folks,
> > I faced a question saying why it is necessary to dedicate one subnet
> > per each vlan and not more when we are connecting , as example , two
> > branch sites switches to the core switch? My answer was to how we
can
> > give IP to each vlan interface on the core switch to make L3 routing
> > between them and at the same time we limited the boradcast traffic
to
> > inside the same site, but if I have three sites(one head quarter and
> > other two are branches) have one subnet in between them ?
> > Like if I have subnet 172.30.16.0 255.255.248.0 distributed between
> the
> > three sites , how can I make vlans without having each site
separated
> > into one subnet!!!
> >
> > Please advice
> >
> > thanx
> >
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 02 2003 - 18:54:08 GMT-3