(YatesII) hmm, finding out that vlaning is harder than my older switch :(
(YatesII) anyone around that knows the 2950?
(DittoAlex) is that the switch?
    —› join: (jekil) (n=alessand@151.82.10.232)
(DittoAlex) i think so
(DittoAlex) i had some experience with them
(YatesII) switch yeah
(YatesII) trying to vlan
(YatesII) 0/1 0/3 0/5 - 0/11 on one vlan
(YatesII) and 0/2 0/4 0/6 - 0/12 on another vlan
    —› join: (D|G|TAL) (n=grep@202.133.71.103)
(DittoAlex) that should be rather easy
(DittoAlex) only trick i can think of is that - and i'm not 100% sure about this - but all the ports are part of a default VLAN
(YatesII) i've done it perfectly on a 1200 before
(YatesII) just assign each port to a created vlan
(YatesII) but for some reason, it won't do that...
(YatesII) i can only active one vlan at a time
    —› join: (C11--) (n=jonas@pD954E468.dip0.t-ipconnect.de)
(YatesII) http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps628/products_configuration_guide_chapter09186a008007ec09.html
(YatesII) thats the info i'm following
    —› join: (phos-phoros) (n=phos-pho@unaffiliated/phos-phoros)
(growler_) some flavours (all?) of the 2950 don't do 802.1q iirc
(dshot) whats your issue?
(YatesII) i'm trying to create two vlans, odd ports one vlan, even ports another vlan... but it seems that only one vlan can be active at a time
(YatesII) 00:36:34: %LINK-5-CHANGED: Interface Vlan20, changed state to administratively down
(YatesII) 00:36:35: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface Vlan40, changed state to up
(YatesII) 00:36:35: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface Vlan20, changed state to down
(Catfive) you're confusing virtual management interfaces with vlans
(dshot) yeah
(dshot) that's a management interfafce
(dshot) 2950 only does 1
(YatesII) hmm
(dshot) Your VLANs are still there, just 'sh vlan' and you'll see your assigned ports, etc.
(YatesII) right
(YatesII) so in simple stupid terms, there isn't anyway i can do two two different networks off this switch?
(dshot) Heh
(dshot) In simple terms, the 2950 is a fairly vanilla L2 switch.
(dshot) It can support multiple VLANs just fine.
(YatesII) hmm damn
(YatesII) then i don't understand
(YatesII) one vlan management
    —› quit: (C11-) (n=jonas@pD954E389.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
(dshot) However, to route off VLAN, you do need an L3 hop.
(YatesII) i have two different routers
(YatesII) one 0/12 and one 0/11
(dshot) You would utilize your L3 hop as you see fit, but generally speaking in your situation you could use one of those routers to accomplish that.
(dshot) You could setup a trunk between the 2950 and one of the routers, etc.
(dshot) Again, generally speaking.
• YatesII is completely out of touch with cisco equipment :(
(dshot) It's not really a Cisco thing
(YatesII) last series of switches and routers i used was a 1200 and 2500
(YatesII) yeah i know
(YatesII) but, more to the point i really don't understand 1. what i'm trying to do, 2. what, what i'm trying to do is called, 3. how do accomplish it
(dshot) Yeah, you need to know what your goal is before doing anything.
(dshot) Otherwise, how can you possibly do it
(dshot) Do what?
(dshot) You don't know.
(YatesII) okay
(YatesII) well i have an idea
(YatesII) but i keep thinking all i have to do is split the switch into two different vlans and it'll bet stright
(YatesII) now i know it doesn't do that
(dshot) Right.
(YatesII) but you said i can do a L3 hop
(YatesII) no idea what that is
(dshot) router, etc
(YatesII) or set up a trunk
(YatesII) router = POS
(YatesII) not managed
(dshot) The basic point is this: The 2950 cannot route between the VLANs for you. To do it, you need a layer 3 device with a presence on each VLAN. This could be a router, a layer 3 switch, etc.
(dshot) To get the presence you need you could have a dedicated interface on a dedicated port within each VLAN, or you could setup a trunk between the 2950 and the layer 3 device.
(YatesII) right
(YatesII) i have two routers, one on each vlan
(YatesII) hmm
(Catfive) interesting strategy
(YatesII) yeah
(YatesII) non typical situation
(YatesII) so a truck on lets say 0/12 that overs all even ports and one on 0/11 to over odd ports
(YatesII) but since they aren't on different vlans, both sides of the switch would still be able to see each other
(YatesII) ie: if the network's are the same... ip/subnet
    —› mode: (ChanServ) sets (+o Catfive)
(dshot) Here's a basic question: Why are these devices on different VLANs?
(YatesII) each router has a dhcp server
• YatesII looks up trunks
(dshot) YatesII: I think you need to clearly answer the following: What is your goal, i.e. what is the point of what you're doing.
(dshot) Yeah, you have these devices on different VLANs and two routers. Ok.
(dshot) But what is your goal?
(Rawplayer) world domination
(YatesII) my number one goal is to get all networking devices on this once switch, with two different internet connections...
(YatesII) vlans is not at all a requirement
(dshot) So, why not assign different gateways for odds/evens?
(YatesII) don't know how?
(YatesII) well
(YatesII) question
(dshot) DHCP?
(dshot) Then again, there are many pitfalls to consider in such a topology in terms of what you're really trying to accomplish anyhow.
(YatesII) i suppose i could just statically configure every device
(dshot) or you could GLBP, etc
(YatesII) that would be awesome
(dshot) and then of course you're stuck in the outbound versus inbound load-balancing act
(YatesII) right
(YatesII) hmm, that would be great
(YatesII) food time
(YatesII) will return