Router on a Stick vs Secondary Ip Address

Greenmet29Greenmet29 Senior MemberMember Posts: 240
I know that these do basically the same thing, except you can do more than to vlan's with a router on a stick. Is there any difference in productivity or anything between the two?

Comments

  • pham0329pham0329 Senior Member Member Posts: 556
    I'm not sure why you would ever want to use a secondary ip vs ROAS if you're goal is to route between subnets. How do you plan on assigning IP to your hosts when using seocndary IP? You can't really use DHCP since all the hosts are on one VLAN, yet needs different subnet assignments.

    I've never worked with it, but a secondary address implementation seems like a nightmare to troubleshoot
  • MrRyteMrRyte Senior Member Member Posts: 347 ■■■■□□□□□□
    Greenmet29 wrote: »
    I know that these do basically the same thing, except you can do more than to vlan's with a router on a stick. Is there any difference in productivity or anything between the two?
    Not sure what you mean by "do the same thing". The ROAS is primarily for VLANs (different subnets) and would need the dot1q encapsulation to work.
    NEXT UP: CompTIA Security+ :study:

    Life is a matter of choice not chance. The path to your destiny will be paved by the decisions that you make every day.
  • pham0329pham0329 Senior Member Member Posts: 556
    Well, I guess if you look at it from a very high level, they both allow for routing between subnets on one interface
  • jmc012jmc012 Senior Member Member Posts: 134
    I've seen secondary IP's used for various reasons on a production network, the main use we have for them now is on the Cisco 10k's. The IP's are set up in several bundle groups as secondary IP's and the bundle group is assigned to the cable interfaces. So you may have 40 secondary subnet's that the cable modem's can use depending on how dhcp gives them out.
Sign In or Register to comment.