Equis
Premium
join:2005-03-18
Australia
| Replaceing three switchs with one
Hello
I have a a router with 3 interfaces going to three switch.
one transit, one customer and one servers.
I was thinking of just having all interfaces going into one big switch.
I don't want to use Vlans or anything, I can't see a need.
Is there any issues with doing this?
Thanks
 |
|
battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000 | Why wouldn't you want to use vlans for this? |
|
Rhaas
Premium
join:2005-12-19
Bernie, MO
| reply to Equis
You can can do that, there are some caveats obviously to doing this, you may end up with a route cache issue and depending on what you are doing on the individual interfaces (ie dhcp server, ospf) you may have some service conflicts.
I would do it with Vlan's. |
|
Equis
Premium
join:2005-03-18
Australia | reply to Equis
Thanks
Some of the servers/devices don't support Vlans.
I could do some tho
Thanks
|
|
Rhaas
Premium
join:2005-12-19
Bernie, MO | The servers don't have to support Vlan tags, only the switch & router. Think of it as creating virtual interfaces on your router. |
|
scobywhru
join:2006-12-29
Fresno, CA | reply to Equis
The default VLAN or untagged VLAN for an interface is the LAN the devices will see devices that support VLAN tags will only see which ones you pass to that interface from the switch. |
|
Equis
Premium
join:2005-03-18
Australia | reply to Equis
OK, Thanks
Will OSPF still work fine?
Any other gotcha's I need to worry about? (MTU etc?)
I have never really done Vlans much before.
Thanks again |
|
battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000 | reply to Equis
The devices do not care about Vlans. If you create a Vlan in a switch and put ports in that vlan it's like having multiple switches in one box. |
|
Equis
Premium
join:2005-03-18
Australia | reply to Equis
So if I have Vlan1 on teh switch I don't need to create Vlan1 on my mikrotik router for example?
Thanks |
|
davebc
join:2007-07-27
Langley, BC
| said by Equis  :So if I have Vlan1 on teh switch I don't need to create Vlan1 on my mikrotik router for example? You don't have to if you don't mind taking up extra switch ports. |
|
Rhaas
Premium
join:2005-12-19
Bernie, MO
1 edit | reply to Equis
Vlan 1 is generally the default untagged vlan on most managed switches. You don't necessarily need to tag traffic as Vlan 1 coming from the router as untagged traffic on that port will default to vlan 1 on the switch (usually).
What you are looking at doing is exactly what I've done here: »This morning's fun You wont have any issue with MTU or OSPF in this setup.
Here is the relevant config from the above setup:
MT:
And from the Cisco Switch:
On the MT the interface named 'Core_Switch' is the physical interface that is connected to port #1 on the switch. Personally I don't assign any ip address to that port as I use tagged traffic for management. Anything you assign to the physical interface as far as ip addresses etc. will equate to untagged traffic and will use the native/default vlan on the switch (usually vlan 1). Each Vlan interface can be manipulated just like it was a physical interface on the router.
On the switch port #1 is setup as a trunk port so that multiple tagged vlan traffic can pass and exiting traffic is tagged with the appropriate vlan. Subsequent ports are set as access ports (un-tagged).
So Using HSW (Horizontal South West access point) as an example from my configs. If you look at the MT config you'll see I have HSW assigned to vlan 29. Then looking at the cisco config you'll see that port 15 is set to access vlan #29 and my HSW access point is plugged into that port. My HSW access point does not tag it's traffic. |
|
Equis
Premium
join:2005-03-18
Australia | reply to Equis
Hello Rhaas
Thank you for that. |
|
