<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: WLC4402: same VLAN, different subnet - can it work? in Wireless</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/wlc4402-same-vlan-different-subnet-can-it-work/m-p/1640493#M99321</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;It's actually a wonder/miracle that someone was able to configure this in the first place, to my opinion.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Maybe it was configured with an old WLC release and survived with the upgrade to 4.2&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;For sure, this is definitely something that the WLC now prevents you to configure. It's not supposed to work, just an example, if you get layer 2 traffic on that vlan (arp for example), where to reply ? you can't know from which subnet it comes from. So it basically means that you are bridging the 2 subnets together and then why not just giving them the same vlan id then ? effect would be the same.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;It's anyway going against the linux routing engine, so I'm still wondering how it was working on 4.2&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;It was probably bridging vlans and doing some unefficient forwarding without you realizing it. So definitely something you should avoid configuring.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Feb 2011 07:19:22 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Nicolas Darchis</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2011-02-28T07:19:22Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>WLC4402: same VLAN, different subnet - can it work?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/wlc4402-same-vlan-different-subnet-can-it-work/m-p/1640492#M99320</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I bumped into a interesting issue with WLC4402. Management interface and prod-interface were in a same vlan, but they have different subnets. It seems that "there are two subnets in a same vlan" - 192.168.66.0/24 is defined as primary network in the router and 192.168.72.0/24 as secondary. See the pic attached.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;At the moment there is v.4.2.176.0 running and it works. When I tried to upgrade it to v.6.0.199.4 something goes wrong. Controller changed prod-interface port to 0 and I can't change it back to 1 or 2. My best quess is that the WLC is not able to handle this kind of setup...but why is it working at the moment??&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Any comments would be most appreciated. Thank you.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;-Petri&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 04 Jul 2021 02:53:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/wlc4402-same-vlan-different-subnet-can-it-work/m-p/1640492#M99320</guid>
      <dc:creator>PetriSignal</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-07-04T02:53:01Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: WLC4402: same VLAN, different subnet - can it work?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/wlc4402-same-vlan-different-subnet-can-it-work/m-p/1640493#M99321</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;It's actually a wonder/miracle that someone was able to configure this in the first place, to my opinion.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Maybe it was configured with an old WLC release and survived with the upgrade to 4.2&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;For sure, this is definitely something that the WLC now prevents you to configure. It's not supposed to work, just an example, if you get layer 2 traffic on that vlan (arp for example), where to reply ? you can't know from which subnet it comes from. So it basically means that you are bridging the 2 subnets together and then why not just giving them the same vlan id then ? effect would be the same.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;It's anyway going against the linux routing engine, so I'm still wondering how it was working on 4.2&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;It was probably bridging vlans and doing some unefficient forwarding without you realizing it. So definitely something you should avoid configuring.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Feb 2011 07:19:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/wlc4402-same-vlan-different-subnet-can-it-work/m-p/1640493#M99321</guid>
      <dc:creator>Nicolas Darchis</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-02-28T07:19:22Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: WLC4402: same VLAN, different subnet - can it work?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/wlc4402-same-vlan-different-subnet-can-it-work/m-p/1640494#M99322</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;yea Nicky is right ... wont work with newer code. In fact, I was messing around with a anchor controller and tried to put&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;managment and dynnamic interface in the same subnet and the WLC flagged it as an error.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Feb 2011 07:25:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/wlc4402-same-vlan-different-subnet-can-it-work/m-p/1640494#M99322</guid>
      <dc:creator>George Stefanick</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-02-28T07:25:32Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: WLC4402: same VLAN, different subnet - can it work?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/wlc4402-same-vlan-different-subnet-can-it-work/m-p/1640495#M99323</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks for the answers. Maybe I leave it like it is and hope the network stays up. Changes in the lan aren't welcome when I consulted the customer.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;-Petri&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2011 06:03:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/wlc4402-same-vlan-different-subnet-can-it-work/m-p/1640495#M99323</guid>
      <dc:creator>PetriSignal</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-03-03T06:03:01Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

