Experts,
I have one network set up with 192.168.168.1 as router IP. Now having SG200-26P I am trying to set up simpe data vlan, voice vlan, and guest vlan. Default network is untagged.
I wonder if I should leave this as data vlan 168 or just create new network with vlan 168. Voice would be 180 and guest would be 100. My understanding is ports on peplink needs to be trunk modes to SG200-26P including all vlans.
My residential base/standard would translate as follows:
ON PEPLINK:
192.168.170.1 = VLAN None MGMT
192.168.171.1 = VLAN 101 CONTROL
192.168.172.1 = VLAN 102 MEDIA
192.168.173.1 = VLAN 103 CLIENT
192.168.174.1 = VLAN 104 GUEST
If you have the available ports, I would then do (for maximum bandwidth efficiency) 1-to-1 from router to switch:
Router Port 1 => SG200-26P Port 1 (Access), VLAN 1 MGMT
Router Port 2 => SG200-26P Port 2 (Access), VLAN 101 CONTROL
Router Port 3 => SG200-26P Port 3 (Access), VLAN 102 MEDIA
Router Port 4 => SG200-26P Port 4 (Access), VLAN 103 CLIENT
Router Port 5 => SG200-26P Port 5 (Access), VLAN 104 GUEST
If you need to keep more ports free on the router, you could always do (for ex):
Router Port 2 => SG200-26P Port 2 (Trunk), VLAN 101/102 CONTROL+MEDIA
Hope that’s a helpful starting point…
well it helps a bit and not, this is what i have on peplink:
and
so from peplink side should I be ok - right?
Most simply put, a Trunk port can carry data from multiple VLANs, whereas an Access port can only carry data for a single VLAN. Since you have just the one switch, you could theoretically combine all those VLANs into a single Trunk port between the router and the switch. It therefore doesn’t make sense to run multiple patch cables between the router and the switch if all those ports/physical connections are carrying Trunk data, imho. Maybe there is an argument that there is more bandwidth being provided across the additional ports/physical connections, but without separating out the VLANs across the additional ports/physical connections I don’t think you get much of a benefit.
