Secondary address range

Hello

The network I've inherited has the following:

interface Vlan7
 ip address 192.168.125.10 255.255.255.0 secondary
 ip address 192.168.7.13 255.255.255.0
 ip route-cache same-interface


My question is: Even tho they are non-contiguous, from a routing view aren't they
within the same subnet and therefore not necessarily need a router to communicate between devices, one using .7 and the other using .125??
s_coad5Asked:
Who is Participating?
 
s_coad5Connect With a Mentor Author Commented:
Ok

After some investigation, I contacted designers of this network. They stated the following:

"The secondary IP address was configured because of how the network was configured "before" the Cisco switches were installed.
Prior to the Cisco switch installation there was a single logical and physical network segment with devices in either the 192.168.125.0 "OR" the 192.168.7.0 subnets.
 
The AT&T router at Data Center was actually configured with the multiple secondary IP Subnets. After discovering this, we added the Secondary interface on the
“DataCenter_3750G-Internet” switch.


The reason the “DataCenter_3750G-Internet” switch has Secondary IP Address included is because:

Prior to our engagement, additional IP address space was needed and the existing switch infrastructure was not able to be configured with multiple VLANs.
During the night of the installation, with the time available, we could not identify every end-device with a 192.168.125.X IP address down to the switchport level,
create a new VLAN and assign all of the end-devices to the new VLAN.

The secondary IP address was configured on the switch to hopefully achieve higher throughput than low end AT&T router"

Based on this, would it be ok to remove the .125 range and create a new vlan for it?
0
 
gmbaxterConnect With a Mentor Commented:
they are separate class C networks:

192.168.125.10/24
192.168.7.13/24

If they were sub-netted with /16, they would then be within the same network.
0
 
s_coad5Author Commented:
Hmm

Vlans are logical subnet, so two seperate ip ranges under 1 Logical subnet seems
confusing. The switches only have Vlan 7 on trunks, but the .125 network is up and running.

It wasn't until the default gate-way was admin downed, that we noticed that we could not ping between the 2 ranges.

Seems odd!
0
Improve Your Query Performance Tuning

In this FREE six-day email course, you'll learn from Janis Griffin, Database Performance Evangelist. She'll teach 12 steps that you can use to optimize your queries as much as possible and see measurable results in your work. Get started today!

 
s_coad5Author Commented:
Servers on .7 network cannot ping servers on .125 network. Since both are on same vlan It's not like I can add the 125 vlan to trunk. I imagine I will need to breakup the Vlan 7 and create a new Vlan 125, then add vlan 125 to trunks.
0
 
s_coad5Author Commented:
Is there a way to adda static in oder for this communication between .7 and .125 to work in the mean time?
0
 
pwindellConnect With a Mentor Commented:
1. The only way the two ranges can communicate is by having a real LAN Router to route between them.  As far as the Server itself,...they are both on the same Nic,...so hitting the server on one IP is the same as hitting it on the other IP,...they both "ARP" back to the same MAC,...and in reality,...it is the MAC that machines actually communicate over,..not the IP#.

2. Fundamentally,...what you have,...from the beginning,...is just plain "BAD".   You need to find out why this was done in the first place and then find a more proper way to deal with the situation (whatever in the world that situation was) so that you no longer have this kind of network setup.   You need to get rid of it so that you have a normal IP Config,...that is ultimately the proper solution to the whole situation.
0
 
s_coad5Author Commented:
I agree it is "Bad". So, the only way to rectify this is to remove the secondary ip off current vlan 7 and then create new vlan 125 makiing sure this new vlan is trunked etc...?
0
 
pwindellConnect With a Mentor Commented:
I agree it is "Bad". So, the only way to rectify this is to remove the secondary ip off current vlan 7 and then create new vlan 125 makiing sure this new vlan is trunked etc...?

I can't really answer that.  You have to find out why someone did it that way in the first place,...and then change the circumstances of the environment so that doing such a thing is no longer required.  You can't just get rid of it without knowing what you might break if you did so.
0
 
s_coad5Author Commented:
thanx
0
Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.

All Courses

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.