Re: Inter VLAN Routing

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by John Gill, Oct 27, 2003.

  1. John Gill

    John Gill Guest

    From: "Andre Beck" <>
    Subject: Re: Inter VLAN Routing.
    Date: Sunday, October 26, 2003 8:51 AM

    "John Gill" <> writes:
    > !
    > interface Vlan1
    > description MANAGEMENT VLAN
    > ip address 10.0.1.1 255.255.255.0
    > no shut
    >
    > interface Vlan10
    > ip address 10.0.10.1 255.255.255.0
    > no shut
    > !
    > interface Vlan20
    > ip address 10.0.20.1 255.255.255.0
    > no shut
    > !
    > interface Vlan30
    > ip address 10.0.30.1 255.255.255.0
    > no shut
    > !
    > interface Vlan40
    > ip address 10.0.40.1 255.255.255.0
    > no shut


    You're sure that this is still speaking of a 2950? I'm doing this all
    the day on 3550s, 3750s, Cat4ks with SupIV and Cat6ks with MSFC2, but
    I was under the impression that 2950s - even the EI ones - just choke
    when given "ip routing" or more than one EtherSVI "vlan x" commands.
    They are L2 switches, after all. But if I'm missing something and there
    are 2950s that actually can route, please detail. Would be a bargain.

    Making the 2621 a "router on a stick", using one trunk to the switch,
    as already described in the other followups, is IMO the only solution
    as long as the 2950 didn't become an L3 switch over night (which may
    happen, as I neither know the exact ASICs they use nor the exact plans
    Cisco have for their IOS an that platform).

    --
    The _S_anta _C_laus _O_peration
    or "how to turn a complete illusion into a neverending money source"

    -> Andre "ABPSoft" Beck +++ ABP-RIPE +++ Dresden, Germany, Spacetime <-
     
    John Gill, Oct 27, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Hi,

    He was indeed asking about a 'router-on-a-stick' solution with the 2950
    switch and 2600 series router.
    The 2950's are pure layer-2 switches and have no option to (upgrade to) do
    routing.

    Erik

    "John Gill" <> wrote in message
    news:bnil4n$1082$...
    >
    > From: "Andre Beck" <>
    > Subject: Re: Inter VLAN Routing.
    > Date: Sunday, October 26, 2003 8:51 AM
    >
    > "John Gill" <> writes:
    > > !
    > > interface Vlan1
    > > description MANAGEMENT VLAN
    > > ip address 10.0.1.1 255.255.255.0
    > > no shut
    > >
    > > interface Vlan10
    > > ip address 10.0.10.1 255.255.255.0
    > > no shut
    > > !
    > > interface Vlan20
    > > ip address 10.0.20.1 255.255.255.0
    > > no shut
    > > !
    > > interface Vlan30
    > > ip address 10.0.30.1 255.255.255.0
    > > no shut
    > > !
    > > interface Vlan40
    > > ip address 10.0.40.1 255.255.255.0
    > > no shut

    >
    > You're sure that this is still speaking of a 2950? I'm doing this all
    > the day on 3550s, 3750s, Cat4ks with SupIV and Cat6ks with MSFC2, but
    > I was under the impression that 2950s - even the EI ones - just choke
    > when given "ip routing" or more than one EtherSVI "vlan x" commands.
    > They are L2 switches, after all. But if I'm missing something and there
    > are 2950s that actually can route, please detail. Would be a bargain.
    >
    > Making the 2621 a "router on a stick", using one trunk to the switch,
    > as already described in the other followups, is IMO the only solution
    > as long as the 2950 didn't become an L3 switch over night (which may
    > happen, as I neither know the exact ASICs they use nor the exact plans
    > Cisco have for their IOS an that platform).
    >
    > --
    > The _S_anta _C_laus _O_peration
    > or "how to turn a complete illusion into a neverending money source"
    >
    > -> Andre "ABPSoft" Beck +++ ABP-RIPE +++ Dresden, Germany, Spacetime <-
    >
    >
     
    Erik Tamminga, Oct 27, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <3f9d0743$0$2738$>,
    Erik Tamminga <> wrote:
    :The 2950's are pure layer-2 switches and have no option to (upgrade to) do
    :routing.

    Though as I recall, some of the Cisco literature indicates that if
    you put a 3750 (I think it was) as the cluster controller over
    a set of 2950's, then you are supposed to get edge-to-edge IP
    routing.

    I've seen similar situations before, with some of the Nortel
    equipment, where a higher-end model "lends" functionality to a lower-end.

    --
    Tenser, said the Tensor.
    Tenser, said the Tensor.
    Tension, apprehension,
    And dissension have begun. -- Alfred Bester (tDM)
     
    Walter Roberson, Oct 27, 2003
    #3
  4. Hi Walter,

    The document at http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/prod_120301.html actually
    talks about something like

    "When a Catalyst 2950 Switch is combined with a Catalyst 3550 Series Switch,
    the solution enables IP routing from the edge to the core of the network. "

    But you can read it in two ways:
    - it enables to 2950 to do routing or
    - gets routing closer to the desktop by bringing routing features to the
    access layer (using 3550) to do routing there (trunks, intervlan-routing,
    etc).

    I didn't find any additional reading at cisco about the first option. I also
    tested it on our equipment (3550 with several 2950's) and none of the
    routing commands (ip routing, ip address, switchport mode ...) were
    supported.

    Erik

    "Walter Roberson" <-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote in message
    news:bnjdt2$d6v$...
    > In article <3f9d0743$0$2738$>,
    > Erik Tamminga <> wrote:
    > :The 2950's are pure layer-2 switches and have no option to (upgrade to)

    do
    > :routing.
    >
    > Though as I recall, some of the Cisco literature indicates that if
    > you put a 3750 (I think it was) as the cluster controller over
    > a set of 2950's, then you are supposed to get edge-to-edge IP
    > routing.
    >
    > I've seen similar situations before, with some of the Nortel
    > equipment, where a higher-end model "lends" functionality to a lower-end.
    >
    > --
    > Tenser, said the Tensor.
    > Tenser, said the Tensor.
    > Tension, apprehension,
    > And dissension have begun. -- Alfred Bester (tDM)
     
    Erik Tamminga, Oct 27, 2003
    #4
  5. John Gill

    Andre Beck Guest

    -cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) writes:
    > In article <3f9d0743$0$2738$>,
    > Erik Tamminga <> wrote:
    > :The 2950's are pure layer-2 switches and have no option to (upgrade to) do
    > :routing.
    >
    > Though as I recall, some of the Cisco literature indicates that if
    > you put a 3750 (I think it was) as the cluster controller over
    > a set of 2950's, then you are supposed to get edge-to-edge IP
    > routing.


    What that probably means is just that the 3750 can route between all
    VLANs that it trunks to the 2950s. This is trivial, it's the usual way
    L3 switched VLANs are built, and in that context, the 3750 is again
    nothing more but a router on a stick (L3-wise). I don't see how that
    would interfere at all with the "Cluster" feature, which to my knowledge
    is nothing but a management-wise aggregation of switches under one
    management IP with no gain except for reduced need of IP addresses and
    some esoteric stuff like "it builds a 'stack' in that web frontend".

    *If* the 2950 (or some other pure L2 switch) would have the same
    *stacking* interface that came brand new with the 3750, now that
    could mean that in such *real* stack, one L3-Switch could supply
    routing for the whole stack. Much like the SupIV supplies routing
    for the whole 45xx chassis, MSFC2 does for the 65xx etc. I've not
    yet done deep reading on that, but IIRC all 3750 models are L3
    anyway, and they are the only model line with that stacking interface.
    You probably even have to make sure they all use the same load (SI
    or EI), but again, I've not yet read about these issues, my only
    3750 so far is running standalone.

    > I've seen similar situations before, with some of the Nortel
    > equipment, where a higher-end model "lends" functionality to a lower-end.


    On top of a real stacking solution, or just via the normal network?

    --
    The _S_anta _C_laus _O_peration
    or "how to turn a complete illusion into a neverending money source"

    -> Andre "ABPSoft" Beck +++ ABP-RIPE +++ Dresden, Germany, Spacetime <-
     
    Andre Beck, Nov 1, 2003
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mamun Shaheed

    Inter VLAN Routing.

    Mamun Shaheed, Oct 22, 2003, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    22,853
    shakeel
    Dec 15, 2007
  2. Damo
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    6,723
  3. FeatureBug
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    14,795
    Ivan Ostres
    Sep 3, 2004
  4. Amy L.
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    7,320
    Barry Margolin
    Sep 7, 2004
  5. JohnD
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    4,417
    stephen
    Dec 18, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page