Hello all...
Right now, I've got a bunch of customers connected to a bunch of
switchports using different VLANs. I've got 802.1q running between the
switches, and then a router attached with a bunch of subinterfaces, one
for each VLAN. Assigned to each of these subinterfaces is the customer's
gateway IP address.
So, for instance, have something like this for the customer port
interface FastEthernet 1/12
switchport access vlan 80
Then the switch is connected to a router, with an interface like this
interface GigabitEthernet 0/1.80
encapsulation dot1Q 80
ip address X.X.X.2 255.255.255.252
Pretty standard stuff....
So, now, we're opening another location, and we've got some customers
interested in having some equipment in the first location and some in the
second, and having it all be part of the same network.
The connection between the two location is ethnernet, and the hardware is
(well, will be as soon as we upgrade out of a 7200) a 6509 on either side,
and I think it'd be pretty cool to run an 802.1q trunk between them using
6509 switchports instead of routed ports. However, I've got some
problems, or at least I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around some
things...
1. In the interests of keeping things simple, is it a "bad" idea to use an
802.1q trunk for backbone connectivity?
2. I'd normally set up this kind of point-to-point link using a /30, using
interfaces in "routed" mode, and assigning the addresses to the interfaces
on each end of the link. If using and 802.1q trunk with interafaces in
"switchport" mode, would it be advisable to use loopback interfaces for
these addresses instead?
3. I'm used to having the customer's gateway set on that Gigabit
subinterface, as above. But if I want this customer to have their stuff
on the same VLAN in both locations, AFAIK, I should set switchport access
VLAN 80 on both their access ports. I'm then stuck figuring out where to
put the gateway address for their IP space. Again, would loopback
interfaces be good candidates for this? Or perhaps a VLAN interface, as
weird as that seems to me?
4. My motivation for doing any of this in the first place, as opposed to
a simple /30 point-to-point interface, is to allow customers to have
access to layer 2 across our network, whether it be for internal use or
for purchasing third-party connectivity. Is it "acceptable" to use our
single point-to-point ethernet for this, or should I be using a separate
network for this entirely?
Thanks!
Rick
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
