Thread Info
  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 2 replies
  • Subscribers 2 subscribers
  • Views 2392 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Suggested
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Question concerning Rulz Rule #3.1

Xavier2
Hi

https://community.sophos.com/products/unified-threat-management/astaroorg/f/51/t/22065
Rule #3.1: Never connect two NICs into the same, physical Ethernet segment unless bridging or creating a LAG.

I want to install four (WAN-) connections between UTM and another router via two ethernet ports on both sides. Therefore  I need two VLANs on each physical connection. (No LAGs)

Is this allowed according to rule 3.1?
Is there something I've to keep in mind?

Xavier


This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Parents
  • 0
    Xavier, if I understand correctly, you won't have the same subnet on any of the four VLANs, so you should be fine.  Is there any reason you wouldn't create a LAG of the two ports first before putting the four VLANs on them?

    Cheers - Bob
  • 0 in reply to BAlfson
    Hi Bob,

    thank you.
    Yes, all four connections use different (transfer-) subnets.

    The reason for this config is that the router between the WAN and the UTM has four WAN connections.
    I'd like to play with the Multi-WAN features of the UTM. 

    Xavier
Reply
  • 0 in reply to BAlfson
    Hi Bob,

    thank you.
    Yes, all four connections use different (transfer-) subnets.

    The reason for this config is that the router between the WAN and the UTM has four WAN connections.
    I'd like to play with the Multi-WAN features of the UTM. 

    Xavier
Children
No Data