On Sun, 28 Aug 2005, Jim Gribbin wrote:
> For those of us not particularly familiar with vlans - I did find what
> seems, to me anyway, a reasonable introduction to vlans and why we might
> want the from an article in Linux Journal last year.
> http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7268
>
> Not to be taking sides, I can see from this article where they could be
> a useful tool in almost any business or institutional network.
>
> I can also see where in some circumstances you would probably prefer
> physical security. i.e. - a network in a school. You would probably want
> the students section of the lan, with all it's budding young
> hackers/crackers, physically separated from the administration's lan.
> You might want to have the different administration sections, on vlans
> though.
>
> Maybe someone can tell me though. Is Microsoft's "workgroup" effectively
> an attempt at this same concept? How does it compare?
>
> Jim Gribbin
NO
VLANs, are just that, a Virtual LAN. The general method being that each
and every packet is tagged when traveling over trunked ports (If your hear
of 802.1q (modern ieee), or ISL (legecy Cisco), this is VLAN tagging),
noting the VLAN it is a member of.
This allows one set of switches, to emulate the behavior of dozens,
hundreds, etc of switches.
Access ports reside within a single VLAN, and pass untagged traffic.
Trunks pass tagged traffic, and may carry any number of VLANs (up to
device or 802.1q limits).
Microsoft Workgroups have nothing to do with seperating broadcast domains,
network seperation, etc.
---------
To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org>
with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
Received on Tue Aug 30 09:06:52 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Aug 30 2005 - 09:06:52 AKDT