I have 2 2924's with the WS-X2924-XL-V expansion port in each. I have the trunks between switches set up via port group 1 on 2 interfaces on each swithc. It seems to work well
on switch 2, I have defined a vlan for ports 17-24, however after doing so, i cannot access any network resources.
We have a 2600 upstream, and it doesnt support encapsulation atm, ill have to upgrade it.. however my question is this
I never found a place to define the netowrk range for the second vlan.. Reading up, intervace vlan2 ip add.. is just for management.
So here it is..
Can I configure this second switch (which is trunked up to the main, and hte main goes to the router) to pass all vlans upstream ? Or do I need a subinterface on the router with dotq encap and a vlan defined ?
I am a newb to vlans, the switches work just fine, it is just those 8 ports in vlan 2 that do me no good.
I have this on both trunks
interface FastEthernet1/1 port group 1 switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q switchport trunk allowed vlan 1,2,1002-1005 switchport mode trunk ! interface FastEthernet1/2 port group 1 switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q switchport trunk allowed vlan 1,2,1002-1005 switchport mode trunk
vlan 1 routes just fine, vlan 2 dies hehe. I understand if you ignore this. But if you have time and dont mind it would rock for some help..
I could be off base here, but I thought you could not create more than one vlan on a 2924? Doesn't it allow only one SVI? I thought you have to create some place else and trunk it in, and then assign the ports...but could be wrong...don't work with small switches too often, so forgive me if I am off base.
You may need to create a sub int on the router (unless your other switch is something that has more L3 capability, then trunk it from the router to switch 1, and then trunk the vlans between the two switches.
that implys it supports more then 1 vlan or am I wrong ?
The upstream router does not support encap dotq, it doesnt have ipplus flash and lacks the mem for it... I am hoping to do this in the switch if possible
It supports trunking and multiple vlans, but not as the L3 SVI for multiple vlans, only one (at least that is what I think I remember about those switches). This means that another switch can trunk in the networks, and the 2924 can put ports in it, it just won't work as the router for more than one network. What is your other switch, anything more robust? Can you create the networks there and trunk it over?
Overall, wait for one of these other guys to weigh in (there are some really good folks on here), but I don't think that switch supports what you want...hopefully I am wrong.
And, I know you can configure multiple vlans and interfaces, but they just won't work. When I hit this issue (if I am correct on thinking this is the same model as when I did this a long time ago), I could create vlans and interfaces, but nothing would work outside of the first vlan interface. As I said, hopefully i am wrong.
That's good news. I'm sure someone will pipe up and provide the answer you need on the 2924, just seems like a slow day for the heavy hitters ;-) other than myself. If I get some time, I will do some searching on Cisco, and will let you know if/when I find something....take care.
And here is a link related to previous posts about this topic...which is what is leading me to believe you can only have one routed interface on that switch, and its for mgmt only. Again, could be wrong and might depend on hardware, but this is along the lines of what I was thinking.
You are quite correct. The 2900 series supports only one SVI interface so by creating a second vlan for switch ports without any means of routing that subnet/vlan those ports will be cut off from the network. A trunk to a "router on a stick" is usually the answer. The 2924 is really just a layer2 switch with one SVI interface designed for management.
That is what I was thinking. Sorry man! Hopefully you are at least ok with your new code and router on a stick. Let me know if there is anything else we can help with.
Router on a stick is a router with one FE correct ?
Out 26xx has a few interfaces, so its not a stick per say. I am ok with it, if its proper and correct. It does work, But I am too much of a Cisco switching newb to know weather this is an "incorrect" setup.
Thank you all for the help, it is much appreciated.
Router on a stick means it is connected to some switches and provides the layer 3 functionality rather than a 6500 or enterprise class switch with MSFC. Generally its for small offices or retail locations, where the router connects to the WAN and then provides the layer 2/3 definition for small vlans for the actual office or retail machines (registers, etc). It is a fine design, its just not hugely scalable and should be re-architected when you start to get towards challenging requirements such as lots of machines, workstations, or large bandwidth. This is because ALL traffic inter-vlan goes up that uplink, and you can start to have performance issues since you only have one trunk. Even if you have two trunks, one will most likely be blocking due to spanning tree.
In short, its a fine setup, just be careful as your requirements get larger or more complicated, as this will be the first thing you will probably want to address if that is the case.
Nitpick - a router on a stick is where traffic between different logical interfaces travels goes to and from the same place, often on the same physical interface. You'd use one to link different logical subnets on a piece of equipment which is unable to provide the routing function itself, e.g. ethernet switch with VLANs, ATM or frame relay switch with different VCs.
Yes I agree wholeheartedly, same interface. I don't deal with them too much, so just took a stab at a rough definition for the OP. Yours is much better/specific. Appreciate the clarification...don't want to steer anyone off. Take care Sam.
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.