For a network environment with multiple vlans tied with subnets, what would be the different if i've created an subnet without assigning any vlan into it compared to vlan with subnet? Does that meant that subnet is not acessible by any existing vlan?
No not necessarily. A subnet might not exist as a vlan, it could be a point to point link between 2 routers or L3 switches for example.
But generally a subnet on a L3 switch is tied to a vlan. Even if the L3 interface is on a router, the router interface will connect into a switch. You could then connect hosts into that switch and as long as all the ports are in the same vlan they could communciate with the router etc. Even thoughy you haven't created a vlan interface you are still tying a subnet to a vlan to all intents and purposes.
If you are only using a switch (L2 or L3) in a network, you need a vlan for every subnet (loopback is a host not a subnet).
However, if your network is mixed switch, router, firewall, and hub. You can create subnet without a vlan, for example the subnet is connected to a hub in which the firewall or router is the gateway. To be able for subnets to reach each other (vlan or no vlan) make sure that you route them properly.
This is actually a pretty cool feature, i didn't even know it existed until I was looking for a solution to advertise a subnet (prefix in BGP talk), only if a certain condition existed. This is exactly what conditional advertisements does
j ai une question j ai achete un routeur cisco 887VA-k9 , je le configuré avec la configuration ci- dessous
si je le lier avec mon pc portable sur l un de ses ports directement ça marche toute est bien ( la connexion internet + m...
Attached policy provides CLI access to the Cisco 4G router over text messaging. Two files are in the attached .tar file:
2. PDF with instructions on how to load and use the .tcl file.