Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I have around 10 VLANs, and two different internet gateways. I want traffic on some VLANs to use one gateway, and traffic on other VLANs to use another gateway. (e.g. I wish to route server traffic via one gateway and desktop internet traffic down another).

Is it possible to configure different default routes for different VLANs on a Dell 6224 switch? Or is their a better way of doing what I'm trying to achieve?

The core switch I am using is a Dell PowerConnect 6224 switch.

Currently I'm using:

ip route

which creates the default gateway for all VLANs.

I did consider adding multiple routes with equal metric, and setting ACLs between the VLANs to deny access to the 'wrong' gateway, but that idea just doesn't feel right to me.

share|improve this question
I asked a similar question that was answered by this great community with some additional implementation details (on Cisco's platform) if you're interested. – Clint Miller Jun 24 '10 at 17:55
up vote 2 down vote accepted

The PowerConnect 6200-series firmware doesn't have any support for policy-based routing (or other functionality that might permit selection from multiple routing tables based on source VLAN / address). It's a very simple layer 3 entity and, thought fast and cheap, not very flexible for more "advanced" configurations.

Your ACL gambit may work, but my guess is that it won't be exactly what you want.

Your best bet would be to avoid creating a layer 3 interface on the Dell switch for the VLANs that need a different default gateway. Then you can use another router, connected to the Dell switch with a VLAN trunk port, to provide routing for those VLANs as a "router on a stick". It means you'll need another router, but it'll get you what you want.

The PowerConnect 6200-series switches are inexpensive and have been very reliable, in my experience, but from a software feature-set perspective their layer 3 entity definitely isn't a Cisco router.

share|improve this answer
I don't know these boxes, do they really not allow you to have a multi-line routing table??? if not then that's not really an L3-switch in my book. – Chopper3 Jun 24 '10 at 12:16
Thanks Evan, I feared this would be the answer. An alternative that just crossed my mind and will do almost exactly what I want, is to set up a proxy server for desktop internet use, which uses the 'desktop' gateway, and send everything else over the other gateway. Most of of desktop internet traffic will be web based. – Bryan Jun 24 '10 at 12:22
@Chopper3: They fill a niche for very low-end layer 3 needs, but they're definitely not sophisticated. They've worked for me in a number of situations, but anything beyond basic IP / IPv6 routing is beyond their means. They're dirt cheap and fast, though. – Evan Anderson Jun 24 '10 at 12:28

You just need to define routes for each vlan/subnet, each pointing to it's relevant gateway.

share|improve this answer
The 6224 is a layer 3 switch. It just has a dirt-simple layer 3 entity, though. – Evan Anderson Jun 24 '10 at 12:14
I edited after spotting that. – Chopper3 Jun 24 '10 at 12:16

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.