Timeline for What are the reasons for not putting multiple subnets on the same VLAN?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 20, 2016 at 7:53 | vote | accept | Sengoku Otome | ||
| Jun 18, 2016 at 15:37 | history | edited | Dave Noonan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Explained how hosts on the two subnets could talk without L3 intervention
|
| Jun 18, 2016 at 15:26 | comment | added | Dave Noonan | Nope, it's correct, I just didn't mention that you'll need a change on the hosts to either route that subnet out that interface or make the host it's own default gateway. In either case the two hosts will talk directly without going through an L3 device. | |
| Jun 17, 2016 at 14:22 | comment | added | Todd Wilcox | Your first "pro" is incorrect. If a node wants to send a packet to another node that is not on its subnet, it will send the packet to its default gateway instead (if the node has a routing table of its own, it will look in that table first). If there is no router available to the node, then it won't be able to send the packet. What you could do is have a router on a stick wtihout the router being VLAN capable/supporting tagging or using multiple physical interfaces. | |
| Jun 17, 2016 at 12:00 | history | answered | Dave Noonan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |