cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
594
Views
18
Helpful
12
Replies

Help with VTP configuration

burleyman
Level 8
Level 8

I am trying to setup the following VTP domains up and get them able to communicate and route.

I have a Main site we will call main and it has a VTP domain called Main. Next we have a site called DR and it has a VTP domain called DRMain

Here are the VLANS defined in the VTP domain called main...

interface Vlan1

ip address 10.10.1.3 255.255.255.0

interface Vlan3

ip address 10.10.3.1 255.255.255.0

Here are the VLANS defined in the VTP domain called DRMain....

interface Vlan1

ip address 10.99.1.3 255.255.255.0

interface Vlan93

ip address 10.99.3.1 255.255.255.0

See attachment for the network layout and setup.

What I would like to be able to do is have a physical server at the DR site (on drawing ESX Server) with an IP address of 10.99.3.10 and then have virtual servers on that box that have IP addresses in the main VTP domain such as 10.10.3.30 and 10.10.3.31 and be able to communicate with both the VTP domains from these servers. What would be the best way to make this work?

Thanks,

Mike

1 Accepted Solution

Accepted Solutions

Mike,

My suggestions in red.

HTH,

__

Edison.

View solution in original post

12 Replies 12

Edison Ortiz
Hall of Fame
Hall of Fame

VTP is for Vlan management and does not dictate the subnets that are allowed on a Vlan.

Your request can be addressed the same way if both switches were to be in the same VTP domain.

Per your diagram, you have a 802.1q trunk between switches, therefore both switches are seeing the same Vlan 1.

You can have multiple IP subnets in the same Vlan. Not recommended, but it should work - provided each IP subnet points to its respective gateway to route between subnets.

In short, for devices in subnet 10.10.1.x, they need to point to 10.10.1.3 in order to reach devices 10.99.1.x and vice-versa.

HTH,

__

Edison.

Is there a better way to accomplish this? And when you say....devices in subnet 10.10.1.x, they need to point to 10.10.1.3 in order to reach devices 10.99.1.x ....does that mean I would have to put in IP Routes?

Mike

No need for ip routes in the switches.

The devices need to know how to get out of their own subnet - in this case they will use the gateway.

When I used the term 'point to', is in reference of configuring their default gateway by using the IP address of their respective IP subnet.

__

Edison.

Gotch ya...I just wanted to make sure. I think I am confusing myself and over thinking things. So based on the drawing it should work....correct? Also should I look at a better way to do this or is this OK?

Thanks,

Mike

So based on the drawing it should work....correct?

Yes.

Also should I look at a better way to do this or is this OK?

Now that you mention it :)

I rather you configure trunking in the VMWare server and assign Vlans to each subnet.

You would do the same in the switches.

For instance:

vlan 10

name Vlan10

interface Vlan10

ip address 10.10.1.3 255.255.255.0

vlan30

name Vlan30

interface Vlan30

ip address 10.10.3.1 255.255.255.0

Here are the VLANS defined in the VTP domain called DRMain....

vlan 91

name Vlan91

interface Vlan91

ip address 10.99.1.3 255.255.255.0

vlan 93

name Vlan93

interface Vlan93

ip address 10.99.3.1 255.255.255.0

___

This is a much cleaner design and this way you aren't overlapping IP subnets in the same broadcast domain. You are also staying away from using Vlan1 for carrying data traffic. You should leave Vlan1 for control traffic.

I'm afraid I can't help you on how to configure trunking in VMWare, you will have to ask the VMWare folks on that.

__

Edison.

Thanks...that helps alot. Would you mind if I redo my diagram with your suggestions and take a look so I can make sure I got what you are saying.

Thanks for your help.

Mike

Mike:

See attached file. Recommended changes highlighted in red.

Edit: On the attached file, I forgot to change the last octet on the switches, so they have overlapping addresses but you get the idea :)

HTH,

__

Edison.

Wow....I am loosing it! I just looked and I have a typo in my first diagram. Please look at this one and see if it makes a differance.

Changes highlighted in green.

Sorry about that. Is that better?

Mike

Mike,

My suggestions in red.

HTH,

__

Edison.

Thanks for all your help.

After looking I just want to verify one thing. For the ESX server gateway you have 10.99.3.2 shouldn't be 10.99.3.3?

Mike

Either, just make sure the default gateway has the routes for the other subnets on its routing table - either via "connected" or a dynamic routing protocol.

You should consider HSRP for first hop redundancy.

__

Edison.

Thanks...

Mike

Getting Started

Find answers to your questions by entering keywords or phrases in the Search bar above. New here? Use these resources to familiarize yourself with the community:

Innovations in Cisco Full Stack Observability - A new webinar from Cisco