Routing between 2 x 3560 PoE cats 1

[chieftan]

I have 2 networks with the following hypothetical address ranges:-

192.168.4.0 /24
192.168.5.0 /24

The setup as follows:-

192.168.4.0 <-> 3560 <----> 3560 <-> 192.168.5.0

What would be the best way to set up this scenario?

VLANs?

 

[vipergg]

You need to specify what you want to do . Do you need to route between them ? If so there is 2 ways of doing this . Make 3560 #1 (.4) do all the routing . Define both subnets on that box and then trunk down to the second 3560 and set your ports on the second 3560 to vlan 5 (.5) . Though if you trunk both 4 and 5 across link you can set the ports in the 2nd 3560 into either vlan which gives you more flexibility.
The second way is to set up routing on both 3560's and then define a routed link between both boxes , though this makes it more complicated than it needs to be. Option 1 is the best way.
(trunked link, vlan 4 and 5 allowed)
3560 --------------------------------------------------->3560
routing configured for
both subnets .4 and .5

 

[ADB100]

though this makes it more complicated than it needs to be. Option 1 is the best way.

It makes it look less complicated but should the 1st switch fail that is configured for routing the default gateway for devices attached to BOTH switches disappears whereas the routed approach will only affect users on one switch.

I would always go with a routed approach but I suppose it depends on what you are happiest configuring/supporting.

Andy

 

[vipergg]

The way he has his diagram is one subnet per switch so it really doesn't matter if you lose one switch , the users on the other would still be able to talk to users in their own vlan . He doesn't indicate that there is any connections above the 3560's that may need to be redundant .

 

[ADB100]

I was looking at this from a real-world situation and the scalability etc. I would still use routed links where ever possible.

Andy

 

[chieftan]

Thanks guys. Only routing was required.

I shall set up .1q trunks.

Thanks again.