During VLAN planning for a campus network, VLAN IDs for different service types must be allocated consecutively, without redundancy, to prevent…

While it is a common and recommended best practice to plan VLANs in a structured and logical manner, the statement that VLAN IDs must be allocated consecutively is incorrect. There is no technical protocol or hardware requirement that mandates consecutive numbering. The primary goals of VLAN planning are to achieve logical network segmentation, contain broadcast traffic, enhance security, and ensure scalability. These goals can be met with non-consecutive numbering schemes (e.g., VLANs 10, 20, 30 for different departments). Insisting on a strictly consecutive allocation can even be detrimental to future scalability if a service group outgrows its initial block of numbers. Therefore, the use of the absolute term "must" makes the statement false.

This is a True/False question. The alternative, "True," is incorrect because it presents a flexible design guideline as a rigid, mandatory rule. Network design principles emphasize logical grouping and planning for future growth, which does not strictly equate to consecutive numbering.

1. Huawei. Campus Network Design Guide. Section: "Network Design". This type of guide typically discusses VLAN planning best practices

emphasizing logical grouping of services (e.g.

by department

service type) and planning for future expansion

rather than mandating a specific numbering scheme like consecutive allocation.

2. Kurose

J. F.

& Ross

K. W. (2017). Computer Networking: A Top-Down Approach (7th ed.). Pearson. While not a Huawei-specific source

this foundational university-level textbook explains VLANs as a tool for creating logical broadcast domains. It describes their function and configuration without imposing a rule of consecutive ID allocation

reinforcing that this is a local administrative policy choice

not a protocol requirement.