if the number of hosts is great , assigning a pair of private primary and isolated vlan to each host will be unscalable at all
so it would be better to configure single primary VLAN serves a group of community VLANs (each for each host) and not more than 1 host is placed in each community VLAN . otherwise if you can group some hosts with matched communications requirements into a single community VLAN , it would be better i think this is the most feasible solution from my opinion , do you need the configuration of this setup? best regards --Abo Zaid On 4/21/08, Manaf Oqlah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Abo Zaid, > > I will choose option 2 because i want to separate hosts on layer 2 for > multiple VLANs but at the same time they should have the same network and > same gateway if it is possible. > it would be great if you can advice me with another scenario. > > Regards, > Manaf > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Ibrahim Abo Zaid < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Manaf > > > > > > as you know primary VLAN can have one isolated VLAN only but have > > multiple community VLANs , so we have 2 options here > > > > 1- make VLANs 200 and 300 isolated VLANs and create other primary VLAN > > say 110 so VLAN 200 has VLAN 100 as primary VLAN and VLAN 300 has VLAN 110 > > as primary > > > > 2- make either VLAN 200 or 300 isolated and the other community and both > > have the VLAN 100 as primary VLAN > > > > which one you will choose > > > > > > best regards > > --Abo Zaid > > > > On 4/21/08, Manaf Oqlah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > yes they are on the same switch > > > > > > thanks a lot > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Ibrahim Abo Zaid < > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear Manaf > > > > > > > > > > > > i assume all VLANs on the same switch , i will prepare a > > > > configuration template and send it shortly > > > > > > > > > > > > best luck :) > > > > > > > > > > > > Abo Zaid > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/21/08, Manaf Oqlah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > thank u Abo Zaid for the reply. > > > > > > > > > > what i want to do is to isolate vlans on L2 which they are sharing > > > > > the same primary VLAN, and at the same time, the hosts on these > > > > > isolated > > > > > vlans can reach L3 ip address of the primary VLAN. > > > > > > > > > > it is like this > > > > > > > > > > interface VLAN100 > > > > > | > > > > > -------------VLAN100 (Primary)---------------- > > > > > | > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > | | > > > > > VLAN200 (isolated) VLAN300 (isolated) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Ibrahim Abo Zaid < > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Manaf > > > > > > > > > > > > what do u mean reach global vlan at L3 ? private VLAN provides > > > > > > L2 isolation and L3 should be transparent i mean you can keep hosts > > > > > > ip > > > > > > planning and routing policy should match with the L2 topolgy after > > > > > > configuring private VLANs . > > > > > > > > > > > > if you added more info about your problem or solution , it'd be > > > > > > better > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > best regards > > > > > > --Abo Zaid > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/21/08, Manaf Oqlah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to segregate traffic between some VLANs at layer 2 > > > > > > > using private but > > > > > > > still can reach the global vlan at layer 3. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > > > > > > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > > > > > > > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
