On Fri, 2009-04-03 at 12:34 -0700, David Rees wrote:
> I'm fairly new to VLANs - why is it bad practice to use vlan1?
>
> -Dave
Especially in a Cisco environment VLAN-1 is, beside being the default
VLAN, also used by several management protocols like CDP, VTP, VQP, ...
Some of them carries networ
: discussion@pfsense.com
Cc: eu...@leitl.org
Subject: Re: [pfSense-discussion] extending LAN private network
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 7:48 AM, Paul Mansfield
wrote:
> use vlans, a managed switch, and use 192.168.x.0/24 for each vlan. for
> bonus points, use NAC and dynamic vlans to allow only ap
On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 12:34:26PM -0700, David Rees wrote:
> > (we do something similar, vlan N is 192.168.N/24. it's bad practise to
> > use vlan1 so we start at 2)
>
> I'm fairly new to VLANs - why is it bad practice to use vlan1?
Because VLAN ID 1 is the default VLAN?
--
Eugen* Leitl http:/
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 3:34 PM, David Rees wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 7:48 AM, Paul Mansfield
> wrote:
>> use vlans, a managed switch, and use 192.168.x.0/24 for each vlan. for
>> bonus points, use NAC and dynamic vlans to allow only approved devices
>> and put them on the right network.
>>
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 7:48 AM, Paul Mansfield
wrote:
> use vlans, a managed switch, and use 192.168.x.0/24 for each vlan. for
> bonus points, use NAC and dynamic vlans to allow only approved devices
> and put them on the right network.
>
> (we do something similar, vlan N is 192.168.N/24. it's ba
>at some later stage. Go to a /22 if you're worried about running out.
> What can be some of the problems with a private /16 address space?
The same thing that's happening now because GE, Xerox, HP, DEC, Apple, and Ford
were given /8's :D
Who knows, you could run into a situation whe
On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 03:48:33PM +0100, Paul Mansfield wrote:
>
> use vlans, a managed switch, and use 192.168.x.0/24 for each vlan. for
> bonus points, use NAC and dynamic vlans to allow only approved devices
> and put them on the right network.
I like this suggestion. Looks like the way to go
On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 01:52:46PM +0100, Greg Hennessy wrote:
>
>What he said :-).
>
>
>
>Using a /16 is guaranteed to come back and bite you in the posterior
I can use 192.168.x.0 with x coding for specific things, like
storeys, or admin addresses.
>at some later stage. Go to a
use vlans, a managed switch, and use 192.168.x.0/24 for each vlan. for
bonus points, use NAC and dynamic vlans to allow only approved devices
and put them on the right network.
(we do something similar, vlan N is 192.168.N/24. it's bad practise to
use vlan1 so we start at 2)
---
e.com; eu...@leitl.org
Subject: Re: [pfSense-discussion] extending LAN private network
Yes, altough you could move to 192.168.0.0/23<http://192.168.0.0/23> first,
already doubling the number of usable addresses...
-Aarno
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 13:25, Eugen Leitl
mailto:eu...@leitl.org&g
Yes, altough you could move to 192.168.0.0/23 first, already doubling the
number of usable addresses...
-Aarno
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 13:25, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>
> It seems I'll be running out of LAN addresses on the local 192.168.0.0/24soon.
> Is boosting it as easy as moving to 192.168.0.0/16
It seems I'll be running out of LAN addresses on the local 192.168.0.0/24 soon.
Is boosting it as easy as moving to 192.168.0.0/16 on the LAN tab, and adjusting
the netmask for all the hosts? Or am I overlooking something?
--
Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org
___
12 matches
Mail list logo
