segmenting/splitting 2900XL?

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by Henry Yen, Jun 15, 2004.

  1. Henry Yen

    Henry Yen Guest

    Greetings again. I am looking to "split" a 2900XL (IOS 12.0(5.3)WC(1))
    so that it will act like three independent (non-VLAN) switches. For
    example, traffic on ports 1-8 isolated from traffic on ports 9-16, and
    both isolated from traffic on ports 17-24, as well as each other. The
    hosts on all ports are running non-VLAN/untagged (both ingress and
    egress, of course).

    Is this possible? Is "switchport multi-vlan" applicable?

    I do have a 2620 in the same rack, although it's only got IP-non-plus,
    so I don't think router-on-a-stick/VLAN trunking would work without an
    upgrade. And, unless the 2900 can be made to tag/untag traffic via the
    host ports/trunk ports, respectively, how would that work?

    I've done this on Intel switches, but the cisco nomenclature is
    confusing. Thanks for your comments.
    --
    Henry Yen <>
    netcom shell refugee '94. ,
    Hicksville, New York
    Henry Yen, Jun 15, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Henry Yen

    News Account Guest

    int FastEthernet0/1
    switchport access vlan 1

    int FastEthernet0/9
    switchport access vlan 2

    int FastEthernet0/17
    switchport access vlan 3

    Repeat for each of the ports you want to have in seperate VLAN's.

    Don Woodward


    "Henry Yen" <> wrote in message
    news:cam33s$sao$...
    > Greetings again. I am looking to "split" a 2900XL (IOS 12.0(5.3)WC(1))
    > so that it will act like three independent (non-VLAN) switches. For
    > example, traffic on ports 1-8 isolated from traffic on ports 9-16, and
    > both isolated from traffic on ports 17-24, as well as each other. The
    > hosts on all ports are running non-VLAN/untagged (both ingress and
    > egress, of course).
    >
    > Is this possible? Is "switchport multi-vlan" applicable?
    >
    > I do have a 2620 in the same rack, although it's only got IP-non-plus,
    > so I don't think router-on-a-stick/VLAN trunking would work without an
    > upgrade. And, unless the 2900 can be made to tag/untag traffic via the
    > host ports/trunk ports, respectively, how would that work?
    >
    > I've done this on Intel switches, but the cisco nomenclature is
    > confusing. Thanks for your comments.
    > --
    > Henry Yen <>
    > netcom shell refugee '94. ,
    > Hicksville, New York
    News Account, Jun 15, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Henry Yen

    Henry Yen Guest

    In article <C%zzc.245$>,
    News Account <> wrote:
    >int FastEthernet0/1
    >switchport access vlan 1
    >
    >int FastEthernet0/9
    >switchport access vlan 2
    >
    >int FastEthernet0/17
    >switchport access vlan 3
    >
    >Repeat for each of the ports you want to have in seperate VLAN's.
    >
    >Don Woodward


    Thanks for the example. To be clear though, the above setup will have
    the switch expecting untagged frames on ingress and not tag any frames
    on egress? (After re-reading the cisco doc, it sounds "too easy"!)

    >"Henry Yen" <> wrote in message
    >news:cam33s$sao$...
    >> Greetings again. I am looking to "split" a 2900XL (IOS 12.0(5.3)WC(1))
    >> so that it will act like three independent (non-VLAN) switches. For
    >> example, traffic on ports 1-8 isolated from traffic on ports 9-16, and
    >> both isolated from traffic on ports 17-24, as well as each other. The
    >> hosts on all ports are running non-VLAN/untagged (both ingress and
    >> egress, of course).
    >>
    >> Is this possible? Is "switchport multi-vlan" applicable?
    >>
    >> I do have a 2620 in the same rack, although it's only got IP-non-plus,
    >> so I don't think router-on-a-stick/VLAN trunking would work without an
    >> upgrade. And, unless the 2900 can be made to tag/untag traffic via the
    >> host ports/trunk ports, respectively, how would that work?
    >>
    >> I've done this on Intel switches, but the cisco nomenclature is
    >> confusing. Thanks for your comments.
    >> --
    >> Henry Yen <>
    >> netcom shell refugee '94. ,
    >> Hicksville, New York

    >
    >
    >



    --
    Henry Yen <>
    netcom shell refugee '94. ,
    Hicksville, New York
    Henry Yen, Jun 18, 2004
    #3
  4. Henry Yen

    AnyBody43 Guest

    (Henry Yen) wrote in message news:<cau1as$3n9$>...
    > In article <C%zzc.245$>,
    > News Account <> wrote:
    > >int FastEthernet0/1
    > >switchport access vlan 1
    > >
    > >int FastEthernet0/9
    > >switchport access vlan 2
    > >
    > >int FastEthernet0/17
    > >switchport access vlan 3
    > >
    > >Repeat for each of the ports you want to have in seperate VLAN's.
    > >
    > >Don Woodward

    >
    > Thanks for the example. To be clear though, the above setup will have
    > the switch expecting untagged frames on ingress and not tag any frames
    > on egress? (After re-reading the cisco doc, it sounds "too easy"!)


    Yes. Frames are only 'Tagged' when transitted onto trunk ports.

    Trunk links are defined as links on which frames 'belonging'
    to multiple VLANs (can) co-exist. The VLANs to which frames
    belong are identified by the tags.

    'switchport access' specifies that the port is NOT a trunk port
    and in this case the command goes on to specify the VLAN.
    AnyBody43, Jun 18, 2004
    #4
  5. Henry Yen

    Henry Yen Guest

    In article <>,
    AnyBody43 <> wrote:
    > (Henry Yen) wrote in message news:<cau1as$3n9$>...
    >> In article <C%zzc.245$>,
    >> News Account <> wrote:
    >> >int FastEthernet0/1
    >> >switchport access vlan 1
    >> >
    >> >int FastEthernet0/9
    >> >switchport access vlan 2
    >> >
    >> >int FastEthernet0/17
    >> >switchport access vlan 3
    >> >
    >> >Repeat for each of the ports you want to have in seperate VLAN's.
    >> >
    >> >Don Woodward

    >>
    >> Thanks for the example. To be clear though, the above setup will have
    >> the switch expecting untagged frames on ingress and not tag any frames
    >> on egress? (After re-reading the cisco doc, it sounds "too easy"!)

    >
    >Yes. Frames are only 'Tagged' when transitted onto trunk ports.
    >
    >Trunk links are defined as links on which frames 'belonging'
    >to multiple VLANs (can) co-exist. The VLANs to which frames
    >belong are identified by the tags.
    >
    >'switchport access' specifies that the port is NOT a trunk port
    >and in this case the command goes on to specify the VLAN.


    Your explanation finally connected the dots for me. Thanks!

    --
    Henry Yen <>
    netcom shell refugee '94. ,
    Hicksville, New York
    Henry Yen, Jun 20, 2004
    #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. Tassos

    3640 + 2900XL vs 3550

    Tassos, Dec 8, 2003, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    432
    Chad Whitten
    Dec 8, 2003
  2. Jayse
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    490
    Dan Jenkins
    Jan 30, 2004
  3. Henry Yen

    Segmenting 2900xl?

    Henry Yen, Jun 15, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    424
    Henry Yen
    Jun 15, 2004
  4. Joel M. Baldwin
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    665
    stephen
    Nov 4, 2004
  5. Mark Scott

    segmenting a fibre backbone network

    Mark Scott, Feb 16, 2005, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    657
Loading...

Share This Page