VLAN Query
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by WS on November 4, 2004, 6:32 pm
Please log in for more thread options other 192.168.0.0/24) in one building, that we wish to make available to clients in a separate building, linked via a single CAT 5 cable. Is it possible to use VLAN's (and associated compatible switches) to allow traffic from both networks to traverse the single cable to the other building? | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Walter Roberson on November 4, 2004, 10:05 am
Please log in for more thread options :other 192.168.0.0/24) in one building, that we wish to make available to :clients in a separate building, linked via a single CAT 5 cable. :Is it possible to use VLAN's (and associated compatible switches) to allow :traffic from both networks to traverse the single cable to the other :building? Yes, that is quite common. In order to do it, though, you need to have a switch at each end of the link that supports IEEE 802.1Q trunking. You would mark each switch port according to the network it should belong to, and then you would set the link between the switches to be a 'trunk' and then set the port to belong to both VLANs. It's usually pretty easy to do once you know where on your switches to look to configure it. We would need to know more about which manufacturer and model of switch in order to give more specific directions. -- 'ignorandus (Latin): "deserving not to be known"' -- Journal of Self-Referentialism | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by ws on November 4, 2004, 11:56 pm
Please log in for more thread options Hi Walter,
The switches that I will be using are two Netgear GSM7223's (http://www.netgear.com/products/details/GSM7224.php). They will be connected to the 192.168.0.0/24 network fibre backbone connected via the gbic slots. I'm planning on using ports 1 and 2 on the switches for the 172.16.0.0/16 network, while the rest would be used for the 192.168.0.0/24 network. So far I have configured the basics of the switch, and have found the VLAN setup menu under the GUI. This is the point at which I become a little confused. I think what I need to do, is to: 1. On the default VLAN exclude ports 1 & 2 - do I need to turn tagging on or off? 2. Create a new VLAN including ports 1 & 2, but excluding the rest of the ports - again, do I need to turn tagging on or off? Am I on the right track? If so, is there anything else do I need to do? Your help is MOST appreciated :o) | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Walter Roberson on November 4, 2004, 7:01 pm
Please log in for more thread options :The switches that I will be using are two Netgear GSM7223's
:So far I have configured the basics of the switch, and have found the VLAN :setup menu under the GUI. This is the point at which I become a little :confused. I think what I need to do, is to: :1. On the default VLAN exclude ports 1 & 2 - do I need to turn tagging on or :off? You want tagging to be off on any port which is not acting as a trunk. If you are given an option of "Untag PVID only" or similar words [ran into this one on a Nortel switch last night] then use that on your connections that will act as trunks. If you are only offered the choice of "Tagged" versus "Untagged" then you want the "Tagged" choice for trunks. -- Will you ask your master if he wants to join my court at Camelot?! | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by on November 4, 2004, 11:24 am
Please log in for more thread options > We have two physically separate networks (one say, 172.16.0.0/16 and the
> other 192.168.0.0/24) in one building, that we wish to make available to > clients in a separate building, linked via a single CAT 5 cable. > Is it possible to use VLAN's (and associated compatible switches) to allow
> traffic from both networks to traverse the single cable to the other > building? Yes. Use "trunking mode" between the networking gear. -- Peter Håkanson IPSec Sverige ( At Gothenburg Riverside ) Sorry about my e-mail address, but i'm trying to keep spam out, remove "icke-reklam" if you feel for mailing me. Thanx. | |||||||||||||||||||
| Similar Threads | Posted |
| VLAN Query | November 4, 2004, 6:32 pm |
| VLAN-Aware switch query... | June 6, 2005, 10:28 am |
| Query related to a stp and vlan case | June 26, 2008, 1:53 pm |
| Ethernet Vlan-aware switch query. | May 4, 2005, 7:40 am |
| STP-RSTP query | October 16, 2008, 3:29 am |
| igmp query and snooping | October 6, 2004, 6:13 am |
| query on port speed specification | January 5, 2008, 7:37 am |
| query on Port-mirroring on Marvell Board | January 4, 2007, 4:32 am |
| Placement of Layer 3 3COM switch query | May 31, 2005, 12:56 am |
| Query on MSTP(Force port state) | July 15, 2007, 12:58 am |
| What is VLAN, how it is used?. I have 4 PC's on one LAN connectd to router, how can I apply VLAN concept here?. | February 4, 2005, 1:16 am |
| Which router for vlan - vlan to internet | September 7, 2004, 2:37 pm |
| Vlan Add and Vlan Strip | August 30, 2004, 2:39 am |
| VLAN Help (for a Vlan newbie) | November 6, 2006, 12:09 pm |
| port-based vlan and tag-based vlan | October 21, 2008, 2:03 pm |
> :We have two physically separate networks (one say, 172.16.0.0/16 and the
> :other 192.168.0.0/24) in one building, that we wish to make available to
> :clients in a separate building, linked via a single CAT 5 cable.
>
> :Is it possible to use VLAN's (and associated compatible switches) to
> allow
> :traffic from both networks to traverse the single cable to the other
> :building?
>
> Yes, that is quite common. In order to do it, though, you need
> to have a switch at each end of the link that supports IEEE 802.1Q
> trunking. You would mark each switch port according to the
> network it should belong to, and then you would set the link
> between the switches to be a 'trunk' and then set the port
> to belong to both VLANs.
>
> It's usually pretty easy to do once you know where on your switches to
> look to configure it. We would need to know more about which
> manufacturer and model of switch in order to give more specific
> directions.
> --
> 'ignorandus (Latin): "deserving not to be known"'
> -- Journal of Self-Referentialism