Re: 3 vlans and a problem

sustained...

From:
Dale Shaw <dale.shaw_at_gmail.com>
To:
Roy Waterman <roy.waterman_at_gmail.com>, Keegan.Holley_at_sungard.com
Cc:
"ccielab_at_groupstudy.com" <ccielab_at_groupstudy.com>
Date:
11/15/2009 04:58 PM
Subject:
Re: 3 vlans and a problem

Huh?

Roy said "subnet conservation", Keegan reads "subnet conversion".

Don't misinterpret words like that, come lab day :-)

cheers,
Dale

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Roy Waterman <roy.waterman_at_gmail.com>
wrote:
> Oh yes 3 vlans! ...my bad, you are right, pvlans cant do that alone.
>
> 2009/11/15 <Keegan.Holley_at_sungard.com>
>
>> Why use private vlans for subnet conversions and not secondary ip?
 Also,
>> he said he needed three vlans to share the same broadcast domain which
>> private vlans alone cannot do. I agree that something was off with
this
>> post though. I think the reason why it's so hard to answer is that it
was
>> completely contrived by yet another newsgroup troll.
>>
>>
>> From: Roy Waterman <roy.waterman_at_gmail.com> To: "<
>> Keegan.Holley_at_sungard.com>" <Keegan.Holley_at_sungard.com> Cc: Gary
Duncanson
>> <gary.duncanson_at_googlemail.com>, "ccielab_at_groupstudy.com" <
>> ccielab_at_groupstudy.com> Date: 11/15/2009 02:27 PM
>> Subject: Re: 3 vlans and a problem
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Keegan
>>
>> One of the biggest reasons for using pvlans is subnet conservation. So
>> yes they can, & should be in the same subnet. Whether they should/
>> shouldn't intercommunicate is secondary (pardon the pun). Else we
>> wouldn't have secondary community vlans.

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Sun Nov 15 2009 - 21:45:26 ART