Reimer, Fred wrote: > > ">As suggested before creating another vlan would be more ideal. > > Why would it be more ideal?" > > Because it is cleaner. With the proposed solution you would be > dealing with > secondary addresses, traffic for both 10/16 and 11/8 floating > around on the > same VLAN, etc. Besides, it sounds like the network is "flat" > now, with an > 11/8 subnet (if you can call that a subnet). They are moving > to a 10/16 > address space, that is subnetted. I'd assume a logical > breakout like > > 10.0.2.0/23 > 10.0.4.0/23 > 10.0.6.0/23 > > etc, based on geographic location (separate subnet per IDF or > floor). It > would be pretty hard to do that all on one VLAN... So you are > going to be > moving 2000 PC's that are all in one VLAN to a bunch of > separate VLANs. > > This is assuming a lot, but it's not like we were sent a Visio > diagram of > the existing and planned network...
That's for sure. The problem description didn't make an ounce of sense to me. :-) I spent a lot of time trying to figure it out but ended up just shaking my head. I'm glad you guys figured it out somehow. Was the network all one big flat network with everything being addressed with 11.0.0.0/8 before? And the switches really were just L2 switches? And now they are moving to subnets and using the switches as routers? That's my guess, but the problem description only talked about addressing between the switches and routers, (which shouldn't even be relevant if it really were just a flat network with L2 switches, so that's confusing). Now, the main point of my message is that it would be nice if people would spend a little more time considering their problem statements. Please tell us "the what" before "the how." A consultant told me once that was her mantra. Tell us what you are trying to accomplish and then tell us your suggestion for the solution. Thanks. Priscilla > > Fred Reimer - CCNA > > > Eclipsys Corporation, 200 Ashford Center North, Atlanta, GA > 30338 > Phone: 404-847-5177 Cell: 770-490-3071 Pager: 888-260-2050 > > > NOTICE; This email contains confidential or proprietary > information which > may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the named > recipient(s). > If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected the > email, please > notify the author by replying to this message. If you are not > the named > recipient, you are not authorized to use, disclose, distribute, > copy, print > or rely on this email, and should immediately delete it from > your computer. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Zsombor Papp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 12:55 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: switch default gateway question [7:72288] > > At 05:26 PM 7/15/2003 +0100, gab.seun jones.ewulomi wrote: > >As suggested before creating another vlan would be more ideal. > > Why would it be more ideal? > > >Yes agreed we know that floating statics are used when you > have multiple > >ways to the same destination in which you can load balnace or > use as a > backup. > > Floating statics can be used only for backup, not for load > balancing. > > > In which if im correct in the case of load balancing you can > load > > balance traffic to the same destinating but using differnt > paths or links > > If you want to have load balancing, then you better start > looking into > dynamic routing. > > Thanks, > > Zsombor > > > >Thanks Zsombor > > > >regards, > >seun > > > > > >>From: Zsombor Papp > >>To: "gab S.E jones" > >>CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Subject: Re: switch default gateway question [7:72288] > >>Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:01:06 -0700 > >> > >>If you mean a L2 device when you say "switch", then those > don't forward > >>packets from the PCs based on default gateway. If this is > news to you, > >>then I am a bit worried about the outcome of this renumbering > exercise... > :) > >> > >>Anyway, I think you need to configure the secondary IP > addresses only on > >>the interfaces which face PCs (I would configure the *old* > address as > >>secondary). Every other interface can be readdressed in one > step, one > >>network segment at a time, along with the corresponding > static routes > >>(will be fun... have you thought about dynamic routing? :). I > also don't > >>think you need *floating* static routes, just an ordinary > static route > >>pointing to the new subnets (you need floating static routes > when you > >>have multiple ways to the same destination, not when you have > two > >>destinations at the end of the same way). When you set up all > this, you > >>can start moving the hosts (ie. PCs *and* the switches) to > the new > >>subnets, and that's about it. > >> > >>Thanks, > >> > >>Zsombor > >> > >>At 09:47 AM 7/15/2003 +0000, gab S.E jones wrote: > >>>Basically I want to know how best to approach the situation. > Our network > is > >>>all statically mapped no dynamic routing > >>> > >>>our switches(4506,3550,6509) are going to be changed to a > different > address > >>>range. the switches can accept more than one default gateway. > >>>The core routers addresses has to be changed to the same > subnet as the > >>>switches soon > >>> > >>>1)the switch old ip address is on a 11/8 address pointing to > the core > >>>router(interface) with a 11/8 address > >>>2)now the switch addresses are being changed to a > 10/16(subnetted) > address > >>>and the default gateway has to point to the core with a > 10/16 address as > >>>well > >>> > >>>Myu approach was to > >>> > >>>1)configure the swith with another default pointing to a > 10/16 > >>>2)configure a secondary interface on the core with a 10/16 > address > >>>3)the other core routers connected to this core will be also > given a > >>>secondary of 10/16 address > >>>4)then on the core routers put floating statics for all our > original > routes > >>>to point to the default GW 10/16 addresses > >>> > >>>I presume that because the swithes now have to defalt GW > statements that > the > >>>swith will automatically send packest for pc's of 10 and 11 > addresses. > While > >>>we slowly migrate all our lan devices to the new 10/16 GW > >>> > >>>5)will start gradually changing the lan devices to start > pointing to the > >>>10/16 GW > >>> > >>>Please correct me if im thinking of this the wrong way. > >>> > >>>Any advice will be greatly appreciated > >>> > >>>My apologies if I didnt explain myself properly > >>> > >>>regards, > >>>seun > >_________________________________________________________________ > >Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends > >http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72344&t=72288 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
