Re: 3 vlans and a problem

I just saw, Ryan answered above.

On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 7:41 PM, S Malik <ccie.09_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 - 19:48:34 ART