I have 1 Cisco switch 24 ports and 12 computers. The 12 computers are divided in three groups and every group is a different network segment.
question 1: I need that every group has communication with its own set of computers but no communication with the computers on the other segments.If I connect the computers to any port on the switch, can they communicate within its own groups? Can the switch pass the network traffic for all of them?
question 2; What I need to do on the switch to have them to reach the internet?
I have a cisco 2921. I have 2 networks that has its own router
192.168.1.0 network is connected to watchguard firewall 192.168.9.0 network is connected to the cisco 2921 router.
I want to connect the 2 subnet using one of the interface of the cisco router. How I can get this work? It is not connected via vpn tunnel but we want to have LAN speed when accessing resources on both network. Each network is connected to a dell switch.
- these subnets are connected to an IP backbone via wirelles acces points
I would like to physically connect these subnets together so the networks devices in S1 could directly communicate with the devices in S2 and vice versa without going through the backbone.
The obvious solution seems to interconnect these subnets with a router or a switch L3. But I would like to connect these subnets and stay at layer 2.
So, is it possible to connect S1 and S2 with a switch L2 ? If I do that, what is going to happen? Can I create just one subnet S3 from this two subnets when I connect them together and have my two separate subnets back as soon as I disconnect them?
I have a home network. There are a total of 3 PCs. Each runs Server 2008 32 bit. One PC - Lets say Server A has 2 NICs with Ip addresses, 10.0.0.10/30, 10.0.0.2/30.Other two computers Server B and Server C have single NIC with addresses 10.0.0.1/30 and 10.0.0.9/30 resp. So as you can see that there are two subnets 10.0.0.2 - 1 and 10.0.0.9 - 10. I can ping B and C from A. I want that B and C can also ping each other and if I run tracert on B or C, it should give me the route to the destination via A. All this without any other hardware. Like using route add... etc eg. if I write tracert 10.0.0.9 on B, it should return a route like 10.0.0.1-----10.0.0.10------10.0.0.9. Refer to the image that I have Attached
Small office, 2 RV042, 2 DSL connections. 1 is used striclty for the business side, and the other is for our CCTV network. They also have seperate DSL connections as we have 2 external IP address for clients to connect remotely. We don't want to take away our exisring setup, but would like to bridge both networks so a few of our internal clients can connect to our CCTV network and use some of the devices. Right now they come in on VPN but its not as fast.Is this doable without adding additional hardware? Both networks need DHCP enable as well.
This might be ridiculously bad for security but I'll ask anyway. Is it ok to have two routers on the same subnet? One router/firewall will do NAT for hosts that don't need a real IP/or care to manage their own firewall and the outward facing router.
I am in the process of migrating our existing server farm subnets to our new Nexus server farm and I discovered something I wasn’t expecting. My intention is to migrate our existing legacy server farm which is comprised of for paired 3750 switches off of our core 6509s and onto the Nexus and connect them to the 2232s via multi gig port-channel connections, two port channels per switch stack.
NOTE this is expected to be a temporary move as next year we intend to install additional N2Ks and move servers over to these directly. But to minimize the outage/downtime it will be better to move the subnets and switchs all at once.
These connections would be grouped 1 gig connections as port channels, one from each switch into one of the two 2232s.
Problem I discovered is Cisco does not intend to have switches connected to the Nexus and it immediately disables the ports when they see BPDUs.
I found a config that does work and it does fail over from one port-channel connection to the other but with the limitation that when the original port channel comes back online it does not fail back over to the original one, an acceptable situation for us. But I am wondering if Cisco would support this design if we did experience issues down the road.
The only issue I really see is to get it to work the config is different on the two N5Ks, see the pert config below for the connections. Both are running the same OS
augs1-ba-ar17# sh ver Cisco Nexus Operating System (NX-OS) Software TAC support: [URL]
I need to NAT some subnets to one IP and other subnets to another IP. The range command want work because some of the subnets are out of order.For example subnets 192.168.1.0 - 192.168.7.0 and 192.168.25.0, 192.168.28.0 nat'd to 18.104.22.168. subnet 192.168.26.0-192.168.27.0 nat'd to 22.214.171.124
Im looking to connect up 4 new pcs to network but I don't have enough wall ports. I thought I could plug cisco 2950 switch into the port on the wall and act like a hub. The switch configuration is default and there is only one vlan. How is it that it won't connect. Does it need a crossover cable.
I'm new here but I'm not really new to networking. I manage small network but I just found out that I have some issues regards to speed.So what's the problemAs a main router/fw we have Fortigate 100A which then goes to a core switch SRW2016.This switch then handles two VLANS.The problem is that I have ports 5 assigned to VLAN 100 and port 6 to VLAN 101. They relate to DMZ1 (VLAN100) or internal (VLAN101).When I connect small unmanageable switch to port 5 I get very low performance (20kB/s internet, 2-3MB/s LAN) however when I plug in PC directly, I'm getting full speed.Port 6 with VLAN101 has the same unamangeable switch but no issues.Obviously you're thinking it's the switch - well I've tried replacing it allready. It's not the switch.Both ports have the same configuration (relating to their VLAN) but resolving it goes beyond my knowledge
there are more than 15 servers which include xen,esx,vmware,also san etc..which are connected to L3 core switch directly. And vlans are created for each.....xen,iscsi,vmware,xen,server. wanted to know is there any other technology other than directly connecting servers to core switch and assigning vlans that can be used in place?
The network card in my PC supports 1Gbit ethernet, my 2TB NAS also supports 1Gbit ethernet, however both of these are currently run through a 100Mbit cable modem/router thus reducing the connection speed. I was wondering if I purchased a 1Gbit switch and connected all my devices directly into that, then connected it into the cable modem, would the PC communicate with the NAS directly via the switch or would it go through the cable modem?
Well, a while back, I posted about getting a Network Peripherals KeyStone24MG, and now I have a 9-pin RS-232 cable to connect via console. Now what do I do? I connect with hyperterminal on COM-1, and it only shows a white screen :/
I am still not able to get internet access through my network switch. Where I want to have the switch, I have a TV (with LAN port), PS3, a network capable hard drive, and a iMac. I want to be able to connect the switch to the ethernet jack on the wall and then connect the components to the switch. So here is a map of what I want to do:Actiontech Router (FIOS standard) ---> LAN port on the wall ----->D-Link DGS-1005G switch---->PS3,hard drive, iMac, TV.When I try this setup, everything looks fine, but I do not have internet access. When I connect directly to the wall jack, I always get internet connection. I have tried two different switches, but still no avail.I have tried assigning static IPs to each of the systems, but have had no luck in getting them to connect. The LAN jack is wired directly into the actiontech router. The range on the router is 192.168.1.10-192.168.1.256 (192.168.1.2 is a dd-wrt range extender).
pxe server ip address is 10.10.10.20 which is connected to switch port fa0/9 and client is connected to switchport fa0/7.i have only 3 devices altogether. below is running config of switch. wen i boot the client from the server, it display error message as: "proxy dhcp were offered. none dhcp were received. exiting broadcom pxe."
I have a 3560 series switch and two comcast cable modems. I connected the modems to them switch via cross over cables and set an OSPF routing on their subnets. I connected my wireless router to another port of the switch and set its gateway IP on the switch port. I can ping the modem with the switch and I can ping the wireless too. But I cannot access to the Internet via the wireless router.
I need load balancing on two cable modems and get a single network connection via the wireless router.
I want to buy a WRVS4400N, but I need to know something before.
The router will serve as an access point for 10 wireless station, 6 of them will run over Terminal server, the router will also serve 20 computer for the internet, so I want to Link aggregate the four LAN port to my swtich, I know how to do it on my Dell Powerconnect, but I want to know if the WRVS4400N will support it, there will be a lot of traffic going through the router so linking the 4 port in LAG mode to my Powerconnect swicth will speed up the communication !
I have a Cisco 2811 router with C288nm-advsecuruityk9-mz.151-4-4.M.bin IOS version.The router has two LAN interface FE 0/0 and FE 0/1.The router have too, two interfaces ADSL ATM0.0.0 and ATM 0.0.1, both are connect to internet..I need the next configuration.The interface FE 0/0 is directly connect to a Switch A.The interface FE 0/1 is directly connect to a Access Point Cisco.The Access Point and the Switch is not connecting between.The subnet of Switch A and AP are different (Switch A 192.168.180.0/24 and AP 192.168.181.0/24)The devices in the switch A have dynamic IP address, the router must be a DHCP pool to assign theses IP.The device in the AP have dynamic IP address, the router must be a DHCP pool to assign theses IP.I created two DHCP pools in the router, one for the subnet 192.168.180.0 and other for 192.168.181.0, but the devices of FE 0/0 assign IP of 192.168.180.0 or 192.168.181. 0, but not only in the 192.168.180.0.
I connected my 2504 wlc with my 3750-x switch using port-channel. Later i came to know that LAG mode is not supported in 2500 series , so i removed port-channel from my core switch and connected all the 4 port in WLC to core without any port-channel. Is that recommended?
one more thing is , from WLC i can ping tha management interface on my core. but i cannot ping the default-gateway of my dynamically created interface on my WLC to core(core is the defauly gateway for all).
A Layer 2 switch with IP Address 192.168.1.4 (Vlan0), subnet 255.255.255.0 is physically connected to ADSL Router with IP address 192.168.1.1 (which is also the gateway address for the switch). The problem I have is that all the devices connected to the switch can intercommunicate but are unable to communicate with devices connected to the Router. I guess this may be something to do with how the Vlan is configured on ADSL router?
I have two public IP's entering a location from two different sources. One is under our control and the other is a 3rd party. Lets say Ours: 126.96.36.199 3rd Party 188.8.131.52
One is coming in through a firewall/router and the other is a direct link. Each will come into a different network segment 192.168.200.0/24 and 192.168.210.0/24
some of the hosts one subnet will need to talk to the other.
My envisioned setup would be as follows.
184.108.40.206 will come in to the firewall/router into the managed switch. 220.127.116.11 will come in the the same switch but in a vlan The vlan will have a trunked port to the firewall/router to allow routing between the vlan (192.168.210.0) and the other subnet (192.168.200.0).
This is for a short temporary time until I get cisco 3560s in place. I have a 2921 configured and it is connecting to an HP non managed non VLAN switch and I cant get any traffic to pass from my computer to the router (pings or anything). Here is brief configuration that should be enough. [code]
Here are my vlans 1-default, 2-management, 192-data, 92-voice, i believe its running rapid spanning tree protocol. Do i have to take off encapsulation on my data vlan to get it to work or make the data vlan default vlan for everything. I am lost as to why this is not working.