Mixing
A VLAN maps several subnet
I've read the post Multiple Subnets in a VLAN and am wondering about the possible conflicts when using several subnets in a VLAN.
The recommended design is of course put a IP subnet in a VLAN.
If I configure several IP subnets in a VLAN, e.g. some hosts in 10.1.1.0/24, some hosts in 10.2.2.0/24 and both under a VLAN, will these two networks interrupt each other? If there's actually no impact then why is such a design not preferred?
vlan subnet
edited Jan 2 at 11:34
Peter Mortensen
1435
asked Jan 2 at 6:28
user53815user53815
405
add a comment |
I've read the post Multiple Subnets in a VLAN and am wondering about the possible conflicts when using several subnets in a VLAN.
The recommended design is of course put a IP subnet in a VLAN.
If I configure several IP subnets in a VLAN, e.g. some hosts in 10.1.1.0/24, some hosts in 10.2.2.0/24 and both under a VLAN, will these two networks interrupt each other? If there's actually no impact then why is such a design not preferred?
vlan subnet
edited Jan 2 at 11:34
Peter Mortensen
1435
asked Jan 2 at 6:28
user53815user53815
405
Did any answer help you? If so, you should accept the answer so that the question doesn't keep popping up forever, looking for an answer. Alternatively, you could post and accept your own answer.
– Ron Maupin♦
Jan 9 at 15:20
add a comment |
I've read the post Multiple Subnets in a VLAN and am wondering about the possible conflicts when using several subnets in a VLAN.
The recommended design is of course put a IP subnet in a VLAN.
If I configure several IP subnets in a VLAN, e.g. some hosts in 10.1.1.0/24, some hosts in 10.2.2.0/24 and both under a VLAN, will these two networks interrupt each other? If there's actually no impact then why is such a design not preferred?
vlan subnet
edited Jan 2 at 11:34
Peter Mortensen
1435
asked Jan 2 at 6:28
user53815user53815
405
I've read the post Multiple Subnets in a VLAN and am wondering about the possible conflicts when using several subnets in a VLAN.
The recommended design is of course put a IP subnet in a VLAN.
If I configure several IP subnets in a VLAN, e.g. some hosts in 10.1.1.0/24, some hosts in 10.2.2.0/24 and both under a VLAN, will these two networks interrupt each other? If there's actually no impact then why is such a design not preferred?
vlan subnet
vlan subnet
edited Jan 2 at 11:34
Peter Mortensen
1435
asked Jan 2 at 6:28
user53815user53815
405
edited Jan 2 at 11:34
Peter Mortensen
1435
asked Jan 2 at 6:28
user53815user53815
405
edited Jan 2 at 11:34
Peter Mortensen
1435
edited Jan 2 at 11:34
Peter Mortensen
1435
edited Jan 2 at 11:34
Peter Mortensen
1435
1435
asked Jan 2 at 6:28
user53815user53815
405
asked Jan 2 at 6:28
user53815user53815
405
asked Jan 2 at 6:28
user53815user53815
405
405
Did any answer help you? If so, you should accept the answer so that the question doesn't keep popping up forever, looking for an answer. Alternatively, you could post and accept your own answer.
– Ron Maupin♦
Jan 9 at 15:20
add a comment |
Did any answer help you? If so, you should accept the answer so that the question doesn't keep popping up forever, looking for an answer. Alternatively, you could post and accept your own answer.
– Ron Maupin♦
Jan 9 at 15:20
Did any answer help you? If so, you should accept the answer so that the question doesn't keep popping up forever, looking for an answer. Alternatively, you could post and accept your own answer.
– Ron Maupin♦
Jan 9 at 15:20
Did any answer help you? If so, you should accept the answer so that the question doesn't keep popping up forever, looking for an answer. Alternatively, you could post and accept your own answer.
– Ron Maupin♦
Jan 9 at 15:20
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
This is possible however:
- you still need a router to have the hosts from one subnet to communicate with the hosts in the other subnet
- in a modern switched environment there's no collision, so this is not a issue, but you still have broadcast. All hosts will see the broadcasts from both domains which take some part of the bandwidth.
- Access Control Lists are bounded to interfaces. So to use ACL to limit traffic between the subnets you are limited to a single interface to place ingress / outgress rules; this is stil doable but more limited
- any host can potentially hear some traffic pertaining to the other subnet. That's a security issue.
- when troubleshooting a network issue, you may have to sniff traffic (with utility like tcpdump or wireshark), having several IP networks mixed render this or other troubleshooting more difficult
- overall, this is more complex to maintain and less scalable than having one subnet per vlan.
Basically there's rarely a benefit in doing so, even if you can encounter some corner case where it is the simplest solution (or a temporary dirty fix, but in IT, a temporary setup often last years....).
answered Jan 2 at 7:45
JFLJFL
10.6k11235
Although you're generally correct, there are some borderline cases where multiple IP subnets in the same VLAN may be beneficial. I've successfully used it for a finer control on SA/DA load distribution on a LAG trunk (for backup). It's also sometimes used when migrating or renumbering subnets as a stopgap.
– Zac67
Jan 2 at 8:43
@Zac67 agree. I indeed had to use this a few times myself but always feel ashamed in doing so ;) I felt it was borderline enough to leave it out but I'll edit in this sense.
– JFL
Jan 2 at 8:49
1
While such "multinets" are kludgy on IPv4, they are probably going to be more prevalent in IPv6. In either protocol version, if a host ends up with multiple addresses on a single NIC (possibly from multiple subnets/prefixes), topics like name resolution, service binding, source address selection and the host's own routing table require a lot more attention than in the world of single IPv4 subnet per broadcast domain we've been living in for the last few years.
– Marc 'netztier' Luethi
Jan 2 at 11:32
add a comment |
In general, yes you can do that.
Basically said one has nothing to do with the other. Vlans are l2 segregation/separation while subnetting achieves the same for l3.
However, it is not recommended for certain reasons.
Most obvious as stated above security.
Unicast traffic will flow without issues, but it can cause other problems.
There are ip addresses for certain traffic which are shared for all ip traffic independent from a specific subnet.(multicast&limited broadcast addresses etc.).
For example when running ha cluster-protocols like hsrp/vrrp, securexl and such or something like PIM/igmp.
So you can use it when needed but in general better try to avoid it. In bigger networks it can cause more headache than it is worth.
answered Jan 2 at 15:57
habhab
211
add a comment |
I do this on my home network: I have a RFC1918 /24 which is what gets DHCP'd out to my internal network and is used by default for anything on my home LAN - this the entirely normal, common scenario you're used to in home/SMB networks.
I also have a public /29 on that VLAN (PA space from my ISP). I don't DHCP that, because... well, I only have 6 IPs to use. Instead, I statically allocate IP addresses on my servers/workstations/other devices I want accessible from the internet sans NAT.
This means I often end up with two IPs on these devices (for instance, my workstation on my desk is 10.200.8.13 and also has some publicly routable IP). This has the benefit of preventing hairpin routing via my (relatively slow) firewall/router when I am accessing something local because all the devices share the same Layer 2 domain. I also do not need to mess with VLAN config on my desktop and it even works over WiFi for my laptop!
My setup is a significant edge-case, mind, and I have complete control of the environment. Your mileage will vary, especially in enterprise environments.
answered Jan 2 at 10:47
Alfie PatesAlfie Pates
11
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "496"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fnetworkengineering.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f55793%2fa-vlan-maps-several-subnet%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
This is possible however:
- you still need a router to have the hosts from one subnet to communicate with the hosts in the other subnet
- in a modern switched environment there's no collision, so this is not a issue, but you still have broadcast. All hosts will see the broadcasts from both domains which take some part of the bandwidth.
- Access Control Lists are bounded to interfaces. So to use ACL to limit traffic between the subnets you are limited to a single interface to place ingress / outgress rules; this is stil doable but more limited
- any host can potentially hear some traffic pertaining to the other subnet. That's a security issue.
- when troubleshooting a network issue, you may have to sniff traffic (with utility like tcpdump or wireshark), having several IP networks mixed render this or other troubleshooting more difficult
- overall, this is more complex to maintain and less scalable than having one subnet per vlan.
Basically there's rarely a benefit in doing so, even if you can encounter some corner case where it is the simplest solution (or a temporary dirty fix, but in IT, a temporary setup often last years....).
answered Jan 2 at 7:45
JFLJFL
10.6k11235
Although you're generally correct, there are some borderline cases where multiple IP subnets in the same VLAN may be beneficial. I've successfully used it for a finer control on SA/DA load distribution on a LAG trunk (for backup). It's also sometimes used when migrating or renumbering subnets as a stopgap.
– Zac67
Jan 2 at 8:43
@Zac67 agree. I indeed had to use this a few times myself but always feel ashamed in doing so ;) I felt it was borderline enough to leave it out but I'll edit in this sense.
– JFL
Jan 2 at 8:49
1
While such "multinets" are kludgy on IPv4, they are probably going to be more prevalent in IPv6. In either protocol version, if a host ends up with multiple addresses on a single NIC (possibly from multiple subnets/prefixes), topics like name resolution, service binding, source address selection and the host's own routing table require a lot more attention than in the world of single IPv4 subnet per broadcast domain we've been living in for the last few years.
– Marc 'netztier' Luethi
Jan 2 at 11:32
add a comment |
This is possible however:
- you still need a router to have the hosts from one subnet to communicate with the hosts in the other subnet
- in a modern switched environment there's no collision, so this is not a issue, but you still have broadcast. All hosts will see the broadcasts from both domains which take some part of the bandwidth.
- Access Control Lists are bounded to interfaces. So to use ACL to limit traffic between the subnets you are limited to a single interface to place ingress / outgress rules; this is stil doable but more limited
- any host can potentially hear some traffic pertaining to the other subnet. That's a security issue.
- when troubleshooting a network issue, you may have to sniff traffic (with utility like tcpdump or wireshark), having several IP networks mixed render this or other troubleshooting more difficult
- overall, this is more complex to maintain and less scalable than having one subnet per vlan.
Basically there's rarely a benefit in doing so, even if you can encounter some corner case where it is the simplest solution (or a temporary dirty fix, but in IT, a temporary setup often last years....).
answered Jan 2 at 7:45
JFLJFL
10.6k11235
Although you're generally correct, there are some borderline cases where multiple IP subnets in the same VLAN may be beneficial. I've successfully used it for a finer control on SA/DA load distribution on a LAG trunk (for backup). It's also sometimes used when migrating or renumbering subnets as a stopgap.
– Zac67
Jan 2 at 8:43
@Zac67 agree. I indeed had to use this a few times myself but always feel ashamed in doing so ;) I felt it was borderline enough to leave it out but I'll edit in this sense.
– JFL
Jan 2 at 8:49
1
While such "multinets" are kludgy on IPv4, they are probably going to be more prevalent in IPv6. In either protocol version, if a host ends up with multiple addresses on a single NIC (possibly from multiple subnets/prefixes), topics like name resolution, service binding, source address selection and the host's own routing table require a lot more attention than in the world of single IPv4 subnet per broadcast domain we've been living in for the last few years.
– Marc 'netztier' Luethi
Jan 2 at 11:32
add a comment |
This is possible however:
- you still need a router to have the hosts from one subnet to communicate with the hosts in the other subnet
- in a modern switched environment there's no collision, so this is not a issue, but you still have broadcast. All hosts will see the broadcasts from both domains which take some part of the bandwidth.
- Access Control Lists are bounded to interfaces. So to use ACL to limit traffic between the subnets you are limited to a single interface to place ingress / outgress rules; this is stil doable but more limited
- any host can potentially hear some traffic pertaining to the other subnet. That's a security issue.
- when troubleshooting a network issue, you may have to sniff traffic (with utility like tcpdump or wireshark), having several IP networks mixed render this or other troubleshooting more difficult
- overall, this is more complex to maintain and less scalable than having one subnet per vlan.
Basically there's rarely a benefit in doing so, even if you can encounter some corner case where it is the simplest solution (or a temporary dirty fix, but in IT, a temporary setup often last years....).
answered Jan 2 at 7:45
JFLJFL
10.6k11235
This is possible however:
- you still need a router to have the hosts from one subnet to communicate with the hosts in the other subnet
- in a modern switched environment there's no collision, so this is not a issue, but you still have broadcast. All hosts will see the broadcasts from both domains which take some part of the bandwidth.
- Access Control Lists are bounded to interfaces. So to use ACL to limit traffic between the subnets you are limited to a single interface to place ingress / outgress rules; this is stil doable but more limited
- any host can potentially hear some traffic pertaining to the other subnet. That's a security issue.
- when troubleshooting a network issue, you may have to sniff traffic (with utility like tcpdump or wireshark), having several IP networks mixed render this or other troubleshooting more difficult
- overall, this is more complex to maintain and less scalable than having one subnet per vlan.
Basically there's rarely a benefit in doing so, even if you can encounter some corner case where it is the simplest solution (or a temporary dirty fix, but in IT, a temporary setup often last years....).
answered Jan 2 at 7:45
JFLJFL
10.6k11235
edited Jan 2 at 8:51
answered Jan 2 at 7:45
JFLJFL
10.6k11235
answered Jan 2 at 7:45
JFLJFL
10.6k11235
answered Jan 2 at 7:45
JFLJFL
10.6k11235
10.6k11235
Although you're generally correct, there are some borderline cases where multiple IP subnets in the same VLAN may be beneficial. I've successfully used it for a finer control on SA/DA load distribution on a LAG trunk (for backup). It's also sometimes used when migrating or renumbering subnets as a stopgap.
– Zac67
Jan 2 at 8:43
@Zac67 agree. I indeed had to use this a few times myself but always feel ashamed in doing so ;) I felt it was borderline enough to leave it out but I'll edit in this sense.
– JFL
Jan 2 at 8:49
1
While such "multinets" are kludgy on IPv4, they are probably going to be more prevalent in IPv6. In either protocol version, if a host ends up with multiple addresses on a single NIC (possibly from multiple subnets/prefixes), topics like name resolution, service binding, source address selection and the host's own routing table require a lot more attention than in the world of single IPv4 subnet per broadcast domain we've been living in for the last few years.
– Marc 'netztier' Luethi
Jan 2 at 11:32
add a comment |
Although you're generally correct, there are some borderline cases where multiple IP subnets in the same VLAN may be beneficial. I've successfully used it for a finer control on SA/DA load distribution on a LAG trunk (for backup). It's also sometimes used when migrating or renumbering subnets as a stopgap.
– Zac67
Jan 2 at 8:43
@Zac67 agree. I indeed had to use this a few times myself but always feel ashamed in doing so ;) I felt it was borderline enough to leave it out but I'll edit in this sense.
– JFL
Jan 2 at 8:49
1
While such "multinets" are kludgy on IPv4, they are probably going to be more prevalent in IPv6. In either protocol version, if a host ends up with multiple addresses on a single NIC (possibly from multiple subnets/prefixes), topics like name resolution, service binding, source address selection and the host's own routing table require a lot more attention than in the world of single IPv4 subnet per broadcast domain we've been living in for the last few years.
– Marc 'netztier' Luethi
Jan 2 at 11:32
Although you're generally correct, there are some borderline cases where multiple IP subnets in the same VLAN may be beneficial. I've successfully used it for a finer control on SA/DA load distribution on a LAG trunk (for backup). It's also sometimes used when migrating or renumbering subnets as a stopgap.
– Zac67
Jan 2 at 8:43
Although you're generally correct, there are some borderline cases where multiple IP subnets in the same VLAN may be beneficial. I've successfully used it for a finer control on SA/DA load distribution on a LAG trunk (for backup). It's also sometimes used when migrating or renumbering subnets as a stopgap.
– Zac67
Jan 2 at 8:43
@Zac67 agree. I indeed had to use this a few times myself but always feel ashamed in doing so ;) I felt it was borderline enough to leave it out but I'll edit in this sense.
– JFL
Jan 2 at 8:49
@Zac67 agree. I indeed had to use this a few times myself but always feel ashamed in doing so ;) I felt it was borderline enough to leave it out but I'll edit in this sense.
– JFL
Jan 2 at 8:49
1
1
While such "multinets" are kludgy on IPv4, they are probably going to be more prevalent in IPv6. In either protocol version, if a host ends up with multiple addresses on a single NIC (possibly from multiple subnets/prefixes), topics like name resolution, service binding, source address selection and the host's own routing table require a lot more attention than in the world of single IPv4 subnet per broadcast domain we've been living in for the last few years.
– Marc 'netztier' Luethi
Jan 2 at 11:32
While such "multinets" are kludgy on IPv4, they are probably going to be more prevalent in IPv6. In either protocol version, if a host ends up with multiple addresses on a single NIC (possibly from multiple subnets/prefixes), topics like name resolution, service binding, source address selection and the host's own routing table require a lot more attention than in the world of single IPv4 subnet per broadcast domain we've been living in for the last few years.
– Marc 'netztier' Luethi
Jan 2 at 11:32
add a comment |
In general, yes you can do that.
Basically said one has nothing to do with the other. Vlans are l2 segregation/separation while subnetting achieves the same for l3.
However, it is not recommended for certain reasons.
Most obvious as stated above security.
Unicast traffic will flow without issues, but it can cause other problems.
There are ip addresses for certain traffic which are shared for all ip traffic independent from a specific subnet.(multicast&limited broadcast addresses etc.).
For example when running ha cluster-protocols like hsrp/vrrp, securexl and such or something like PIM/igmp.
So you can use it when needed but in general better try to avoid it. In bigger networks it can cause more headache than it is worth.
answered Jan 2 at 15:57
habhab
211
add a comment |
In general, yes you can do that.
Basically said one has nothing to do with the other. Vlans are l2 segregation/separation while subnetting achieves the same for l3.
However, it is not recommended for certain reasons.
Most obvious as stated above security.
Unicast traffic will flow without issues, but it can cause other problems.
There are ip addresses for certain traffic which are shared for all ip traffic independent from a specific subnet.(multicast&limited broadcast addresses etc.).
For example when running ha cluster-protocols like hsrp/vrrp, securexl and such or something like PIM/igmp.
So you can use it when needed but in general better try to avoid it. In bigger networks it can cause more headache than it is worth.
answered Jan 2 at 15:57
habhab
211
add a comment |
In general, yes you can do that.
Basically said one has nothing to do with the other. Vlans are l2 segregation/separation while subnetting achieves the same for l3.
However, it is not recommended for certain reasons.
Most obvious as stated above security.
Unicast traffic will flow without issues, but it can cause other problems.
There are ip addresses for certain traffic which are shared for all ip traffic independent from a specific subnet.(multicast&limited broadcast addresses etc.).
For example when running ha cluster-protocols like hsrp/vrrp, securexl and such or something like PIM/igmp.
So you can use it when needed but in general better try to avoid it. In bigger networks it can cause more headache than it is worth.
answered Jan 2 at 15:57
habhab
211
In general, yes you can do that.
Basically said one has nothing to do with the other. Vlans are l2 segregation/separation while subnetting achieves the same for l3.
However, it is not recommended for certain reasons.
Most obvious as stated above security.
Unicast traffic will flow without issues, but it can cause other problems.
There are ip addresses for certain traffic which are shared for all ip traffic independent from a specific subnet.(multicast&limited broadcast addresses etc.).
For example when running ha cluster-protocols like hsrp/vrrp, securexl and such or something like PIM/igmp.
So you can use it when needed but in general better try to avoid it. In bigger networks it can cause more headache than it is worth.
answered Jan 2 at 15:57
habhab
211
answered Jan 2 at 15:57
habhab
211
answered Jan 2 at 15:57
habhab
211
answered Jan 2 at 15:57
habhab
211
211
add a comment |
add a comment |
I do this on my home network: I have a RFC1918 /24 which is what gets DHCP'd out to my internal network and is used by default for anything on my home LAN - this the entirely normal, common scenario you're used to in home/SMB networks.
I also have a public /29 on that VLAN (PA space from my ISP). I don't DHCP that, because... well, I only have 6 IPs to use. Instead, I statically allocate IP addresses on my servers/workstations/other devices I want accessible from the internet sans NAT.
This means I often end up with two IPs on these devices (for instance, my workstation on my desk is 10.200.8.13 and also has some publicly routable IP). This has the benefit of preventing hairpin routing via my (relatively slow) firewall/router when I am accessing something local because all the devices share the same Layer 2 domain. I also do not need to mess with VLAN config on my desktop and it even works over WiFi for my laptop!
My setup is a significant edge-case, mind, and I have complete control of the environment. Your mileage will vary, especially in enterprise environments.
answered Jan 2 at 10:47
Alfie PatesAlfie Pates
11
add a comment |
I do this on my home network: I have a RFC1918 /24 which is what gets DHCP'd out to my internal network and is used by default for anything on my home LAN - this the entirely normal, common scenario you're used to in home/SMB networks.
I also have a public /29 on that VLAN (PA space from my ISP). I don't DHCP that, because... well, I only have 6 IPs to use. Instead, I statically allocate IP addresses on my servers/workstations/other devices I want accessible from the internet sans NAT.
This means I often end up with two IPs on these devices (for instance, my workstation on my desk is 10.200.8.13 and also has some publicly routable IP). This has the benefit of preventing hairpin routing via my (relatively slow) firewall/router when I am accessing something local because all the devices share the same Layer 2 domain. I also do not need to mess with VLAN config on my desktop and it even works over WiFi for my laptop!
My setup is a significant edge-case, mind, and I have complete control of the environment. Your mileage will vary, especially in enterprise environments.
answered Jan 2 at 10:47
Alfie PatesAlfie Pates
11
add a comment |
I do this on my home network: I have a RFC1918 /24 which is what gets DHCP'd out to my internal network and is used by default for anything on my home LAN - this the entirely normal, common scenario you're used to in home/SMB networks.
I also have a public /29 on that VLAN (PA space from my ISP). I don't DHCP that, because... well, I only have 6 IPs to use. Instead, I statically allocate IP addresses on my servers/workstations/other devices I want accessible from the internet sans NAT.
This means I often end up with two IPs on these devices (for instance, my workstation on my desk is 10.200.8.13 and also has some publicly routable IP). This has the benefit of preventing hairpin routing via my (relatively slow) firewall/router when I am accessing something local because all the devices share the same Layer 2 domain. I also do not need to mess with VLAN config on my desktop and it even works over WiFi for my laptop!
My setup is a significant edge-case, mind, and I have complete control of the environment. Your mileage will vary, especially in enterprise environments.
answered Jan 2 at 10:47
Alfie PatesAlfie Pates
11
I do this on my home network: I have a RFC1918 /24 which is what gets DHCP'd out to my internal network and is used by default for anything on my home LAN - this the entirely normal, common scenario you're used to in home/SMB networks.
I also have a public /29 on that VLAN (PA space from my ISP). I don't DHCP that, because... well, I only have 6 IPs to use. Instead, I statically allocate IP addresses on my servers/workstations/other devices I want accessible from the internet sans NAT.
This means I often end up with two IPs on these devices (for instance, my workstation on my desk is 10.200.8.13 and also has some publicly routable IP). This has the benefit of preventing hairpin routing via my (relatively slow) firewall/router when I am accessing something local because all the devices share the same Layer 2 domain. I also do not need to mess with VLAN config on my desktop and it even works over WiFi for my laptop!
My setup is a significant edge-case, mind, and I have complete control of the environment. Your mileage will vary, especially in enterprise environments.
answered Jan 2 at 10:47
Alfie PatesAlfie Pates
11
answered Jan 2 at 10:47
Alfie PatesAlfie Pates
11
answered Jan 2 at 10:47
Alfie PatesAlfie Pates
11
answered Jan 2 at 10:47
Alfie PatesAlfie Pates
11
11
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Network Engineering Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fnetworkengineering.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f55793%2fa-vlan-maps-several-subnet%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Did any answer help you? If so, you should accept the answer so that the question doesn't keep popping up forever, looking for an answer. Alternatively, you could post and accept your own answer.
– Ron Maupin♦
Jan 9 at 15:20