Which states: "Avoid creating VLANs "for the sake of it." Be clear on the benefits that will accrue as a result of implementing VLANs when deciding how many VLANs to create. This decision cannot be made independently of the IP addressing plan, where the number of LAN subnets will usually correlate to the number of VLANs deployed."
Is mandating that specific ranges like this be used ok? If a WAN site has a router with a single Ethernet interface you can only really give it a single internal IP address and subnetmask. (Unless a bunch of "ip addresss n.n.n.n m.m.m.m secondary" commands would work)
So I'm guessing that's where the Layer 3 switch would come in?? We need seperate VLANS for the phones and Workstations regardless.
I want our IP addressing plan to work out, but I don't quite know enough about networking to be confident in the direction I'm going.
We are pleased to announce availability of Beta software for 16.6.3. 16.6.3 will be the second rebuild on the 16.6 release train targeted towards Catalyst 9500/9400/9300/3850/3650 switching platforms. We are looking for early feedback from custome...