nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Router on a Stick vs Secondary Ip Address

Greenmet29

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?

Find more posts tagged with

SAVE $250 on Your CISCO Boot Camp — Use Code "EXAM26"

Exclusively for TechExams members for Infosec Boot Camps starting before April 30, 2026

View CISCO Boot Camps

Comments

pham0329

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

MrRyte

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.

pham0329

Well, I guess if you look at it from a very high level, they both allow for routing between subnets on one interface

jmc012

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.