Forsaken_GA wrote: »
Let me see if I can explain this a little better without the novel:
The behavior of a switch when dealing with broadcasts is to forward them.
When you create a vlan on an intelligent switch, what you are essentially doing is adding a dumb switch to the network, and each of those dumb switches you create are going to forward broadcasts.
kalebksp wrote: »
To really understand what's happening you may want to consider why there are no collisions with full duplex. When two devices are directly connected via Ethernet (ie no hubs in between) the transmit wires of device 1 are directly connect to the receive wires of device 2 and vice versa. Therefor it is not physically possible for a collision to occur because the two devices will never attempt to transmit on the same wire.
Full duplex doesn't eliminate collisions but rather the physical impossibility of collisions allows for full duplex. In the example above it wouldn't matter if the devices were set to full or half duplex, there still can't be a collision.
In terms of collision domains, each switch port is a collision domain whether or not collisions are possible. It's just trivia, not applicable to the real world in most cases.
rwwest7 wrote: »
Have you ever heard the term non-routed VLAN? Sometimes you don't want certain VLANs to be routed.
Also, when you create a VLAN on an intelligent switch, you now have two intelligent switches. Remember, switches are intelligent because they forward frames based on MAC address unlike hubs. Calling a switch dumb just because it can't do interVLAN routing is wrong, that's not their job in life.
So, by definition if you have two VLANs on one switch you have two broadcast domains. By the book that's what you have. Anyone who knows that should also know that to route between those VLANs you need some kind of L3 device, but that's not the point. The point is by definition if you have two VLANs on one switch you have two broadcast domains.
Edit: Just noticed you're an NP. I'm sure you know more about this than me, but maybe we just have two differant points of view.
Forsaken_GA wrote: »
Eh, the NP doesn't really cover this distinction very well either. My point of view comes more form inheriting a network that was very poorly built. When I first started working here, we had vlans with over 2000 devices in them, spanning many subnets. The broadcast traffic was absolutely atrocious.
DevilWAH wrote: »
Oh snap deffently the best way to learn...