Timeline for answer to When *not* to create a SVI for a L2 VLAN? by Łukasz Bromirski
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Post Revisions
3 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 22, 2013 at 11:23 | comment | added | Łukasz Bromirski | In this sense it will all depend on the architecture of the box you're given. With Cisco Catalysts, you're adding logical interface to IDB but not adding route entry (along with TCAM space request). Anyway, operational pro is that you can "stabilize" the SNMP indexes this way, and con is someone at some point may be eager to "fix" the config of some service by adding the IP once he/she sees interface created without IP address. | |
| May 22, 2013 at 10:47 | comment | added | generalnetworkerror | Everyone's getting hung up on L3 in the SVI. Maybe I'm using the term incorrect. I'm asking about after the vlan x is created, are there merits or negatives of going into interface vlan x which creates the vlan interface, and not configured with an IP. | |
| May 22, 2013 at 10:40 | history | answered | Łukasz Bromirski | CC BY-SA 3.0 |