Re: 3 vlans and a problem

Vrf?

On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Dale Shaw <dale.shaw_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> Huh?
>
> Roy said "subnet conservation", Keegan reads "subnet conversion".
>
> Don't misinterpret words like that, come lab day :-)
>
> cheers,
> Dale
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Roy Waterman <roy.waterman_at_gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Oh yes 3 vlans! ...my bad, you are right, pvlans cant do that alone.
> >
> > 2009/11/15 <Keegan.Holley_at_sungard.com>
> >
> >> Why use private vlans for subnet conversions and not secondary ip?
> Also,
> >> he said he needed three vlans to share the same broadcast domain which
> >> private vlans alone cannot do. I agree that something was off with this
> >> post though. I think the reason why it's so hard to answer is that it
> was
> >> completely contrived by yet another newsgroup troll.
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Roy Waterman <roy.waterman_at_gmail.com> To: "<
> >> Keegan.Holley_at_sungard.com>" <Keegan.Holley_at_sungard.com> Cc: Gary
> Duncanson
> >> <gary.duncanson_at_googlemail.com>, "ccielab_at_groupstudy.com" <
> >> ccielab_at_groupstudy.com> Date: 11/15/2009 02:27 PM
> >> Subject: Re: 3 vlans and a problem
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> Keegan
> >>
> >> One of the biggest reasons for using pvlans is subnet conservation. So
> >> yes they can, & should be in the same subnet. Whether they should/
> >> shouldn't intercommunicate is secondary (pardon the pun). Else we
> >> wouldn't have secondary community vlans.
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Sun Nov 15 2009 - 19:41:47 ART