<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Josh, that's a great document, thank you.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I'm going to do the testing in the lab, but are there any functional advantages to using VLAN configurations versus sub-interface configuration on the Cisco device when converting from the Foundry Ethernet multiple IP address configuration?<BR> </DIV>Much appreciated,<BR>Eric Louie<BR>619-743-5375
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>
<HR SIZE=1>
<B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> Josh Farrelly <Josh.Farrelly@manukau.ac.nz><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> Eric A Louie <elouie@yahoo.com>; "foundry-nsp@puck.nether.net" <foundry-nsp@puck.nether.net><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Thu, October 4, 2012 3:30:11 PM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> Re: [f-nsp] Tagged interfaces<BR></FONT><BR>
<DIV>
<DIV>Hi Eric</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>For the most part, yes to both.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Take a look at this document here (pages 19 & 20): http://community.brocade.com/servlet/JiveServlet/previewBody/1848-102-1-3553/Brocade-Cisco%20Comparison.pdf</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>Kind Regards,</DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><B>Josh Farrelly</B></DIV>
<DIV><I>Infrastructure Architect, ICTS.</I></DIV>
<DIV>Manukau Institute of Technology</DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><SPAN id=OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION>
<DIV style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; TEXT-ALIGN: left; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; FONT-FAMILY: Calibri; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt"><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From: </SPAN>Eric A Louie <<A href="mailto:elouie@yahoo.com" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:elouie@yahoo.com">elouie@yahoo.com</A>><BR><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Date: </SPAN>Friday, 5 October 2012 11:07 AM<BR><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To: </SPAN>"<A href="mailto:foundry-nsp@puck.nether.net" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:foundry-nsp@puck.nether.net">foundry-nsp@puck.nether.net</A>" <<A href="mailto:foundry-nsp@puck.nether.net" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:foundry-nsp@puck.nether.net">foundry-nsp@puck.nether.net</A>><BR><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject: </SPAN>[f-nsp] Tagged
interfaces<BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #ff0000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000>I'm preparing to translate some Foundry configurations to Cisco.</FONT></DIV>
<P><FONT color=#000000></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>As far as I can tell, the tagged interfaces are really just 802.1q trunk ports. Is that an accurate assessment?</FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT color=#000000>Foundry allows multiple IP addresses on the Ethernet interface. Do I have a choice to use vlan interfaces and/or Ethernet sub-interfaces on the Cisco to provide the same functionality?</FONT></P>
<DIV><BR> </DIV>Much appreciated,<BR>Eric Louie<BR>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></SPAN></DIV></DIV></div></body></html>