SOUTHERN LUZON STATE UNIVERSITY

LUCBAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT FOR THE REQUIREMENTS IN

COMMUNICATIONS 4: DATA
COMMUNICATIONS LABORATORY

PARAN, CHRISTINE JOYCE M.

BSECE – III – GH

MAY 24, 2025

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Activity 1: Introduction to Networking Devices ………………………………………………… 87%

Activity 2: Introduction to Packet Tracer …………………………………………………………… 91%
Activity 3: Basic Router Configuration ………………………………………………………………. 90%
Activity 4: IPV4 Addressing and Subnetting ………………………………………………………. 90%
Activity 5: Virtual LAN (VLAN) …………………………………………………………………………… 87%
Activity 6: Configuring IP Routing – Static Routing.……………………………………………. 90%
Activity 7: Configuring IP Routing – Dynamic Routing ……………………………………….. 89%
Activity 8: Inter-VLAN Routing …………………………………………………………………………… 94%

LAB ACTIVITIES DOCUMENTATION

Activity 1: Hub Discussion

Activity 2: Switch Discussion
Activity 3: Router Configuration
Activity 4: Router Configuration using CLI Method
Activity 5: Verifying of Classful Addressing
Activity 6: Verifying of Subnetting
Activity 7: Verifying VLAN
Activity 8: Static Routing
Activity 9: Dynamic Routing
Activity 10: Inter-VLAN
LAB ACTIVITIES DOCUMENTATION
ACTIVITY 1: HUB DISCUSSION

Figure 1.1 shows a topology having the connection of six (6) PCs using straight-through ethernet
cables to a single hub.

Figure 1.2 shows the successful pinging of PC0 going to PC1, PC2, PC3, PC4, & PC5.

Figure 1.3 shows the successful pinging of PC1 going to PC0, PC2, PC3, PC4, & PC5.

Figure 1.4 shows the successful pinging of PC2 going to PC0, PC1, PC3, PC4, & PC5

Figure 1.5 shows the successful pinging of PC3 going to PC0, PC1, PC2, PC4, & PC5

Figure 1.6 shows the successful pinging of PC4 going to PC0, PC1, PC2, PC3, & PC5

Figure 1.7 shows the successful pinging of PC5 going to PC0, PC1, PC2, PC3, & PC4
CONCLUSION

In conclusion, in this activity, we explored how a hub operates within a network by using Cisco
Packet Tracer. The setup involved connecting six personal computers (PC0 through PC5) to a
central hub (Hub0) using straight-through Ethernet cables. The main objective was to observe
how devices communicate in a hub-based topology and to verify network connectivity among
them. Once the physical connections were established, we used the Ping utility to test
communication between the PCs. The Ping tests were successful, demonstrating that the hub
broadcasted the data packets to all connected devices. Although the data was sent to every PC,
only the target device recognized and responded to the request, confirming that the data
transmission process in a hub environment was working as intended.

ACTIVITY 2: SWITCH DISCUSSION

Figure 2.1 shows a topology having the connection of five (5) PCs using straight-through ethernet
cables to a single switch.

Figure 2.2 shows the successful pinging of PC0 going to PC1, PC2, PC3, and PC4

Figure 2.3 shows the successful pinging of PC1 going to PC0, PC2, PC3, and PC4

Figure 2.4 shows the successful pinging of PC2 going to PC0, PC1, PC3, and PC4

Figure 2.5 shows the successful pinging of PC3 going to PC0, PC1, PC2, and PC4

Figure 2.5 shows the successful pinging of PC4 going to PC0, PC1, PC2, and PC3
CONCLUSION
In this exercise, we gained insight into how a switch operates in a simple network setup using
Cisco Packet Tracer. The configuration involved five PCs (PC0 to PC4), all linked to a single switch
(Switch0) using straight-through cables, creating a star-shaped network layout. The switch
functioned as the central device, directing data between the connected PCs. We tested
connectivity by sending ping requests from PC0 to each of the other PCs (PC1 to PC4). All pings
were successful, confirming that the network was set up correctly and communication between
devices was working as expected. The success of these tests illustrated the key role of switches in
efficiently managing network traffic—unlike hubs, switches forward data only to the intended
recipient’s port based on MAC and IP address information.

ACTIVITY 3: ROUTER CONFIGURATION

Figure 3.1 displays a network layout where a single router connects to two (2) switches, and each
switch is linked to three (3) PCs.

Figure 3.2 shows the successful pinging of PC0 going to PC1, PC2, PC3, PC4, and PC5

Figure 3.3 shows the successful pinging of PC1 going to PC0, PC2, PC3, PC4, and PC5

Figure 3.4 shows the successful pinging of PC2 going to PC0, PC1, PC3, PC4, and PC5

Figure 3.5 shows the successful pinging of PC3 going to PC0, PC1, PC2, PC4, and PC5
Figure 3.6 shows the successful pinging of PC4 going to PC0, PC1, PC2, PC3, and PC5

Figure 3.7 shows the successful pinging of PC5 going to PC0, PC1, PC2, PC3, and PC5

CONCLUSION

In this activity, I set up a router-based network using Cisco Packet Tracer. The network topology
included two switches: Switch0 connected to PCs PC0, PC1, and PC2, and Switch1 connected to
PCs PC3, PC4, and PC5. Both switches were connected to a central router (Router0), which served
as the bridge for communication between the two separate LAN segments. Once we assigned the
correct IP addresses and configured the router interfaces, we tested connectivity by pinging from
PC0 to the other PCs in the network. The ping tests were successful, demonstrating that the router
was properly configured to forward packets between the networks through its interface IPs. For
instance, when PC0 pinged PC4, the data traveled from Switch0 to Router0, then was routed to
Switch1 and reached PC4 without issues. This confirmed that the routing setup was working
correctly. Overall, the activity provided valuable experience in configuring a multi-network
environment, showed how routers enable communication between different LANs, and
emphasized the importance of precise IP addressing and interface configuration.

ACTIVITY 4: ROUTER CONFIGURATION USING CLI METHOD

Figure 4.1 presents a network topology where a single router is connected to two (2) switches,
and each switch connects to two PCs.
Figure 4.2 shows the successful pinging of PC0 going to PC1, PC2, and PC3

Figure 4.3 shows the successful pinging of PC1 going to PC0, PC2, and PC3

Figure 4.4 shows the successful pinging of PC2 going to PC0, PC1, and PC3

Figure 4.5 shows the successful pinging of PC3 going to PC0, PC1, and PC2

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, in this activity, we focused on building and configuring a router-based network

using the Command Line Interface (CLI). The setup included one router (Router0), two switches
(Switch0 and Switch1), and four PCs—PC0 and PC1 connected to Switch0, and PC2 and PC3
connected to Switch1. Both switches were linked to Router0 to enable communication between
the two separate subnets. We carefully assigned IP addresses and subnet masks to each PC
according to their respective subnet requirements. Using the CLI, we configured the router’s
interfaces with appropriate IP addresses and activated them with the no shutdown command. To
test the configuration, we used the Ping command from PC0 to communicate with PC1, PC2, and
PC3. All ping tests were successful, confirming that the router was properly routing packets
between the subnets. This activity reinforced our understanding of how routers enable inter-
network communication and highlighted the importance of correct IP addressing and precise CLI
configuration for network functionality.

ACTIVITY 5: VERIFYING OF CLASSFUL ADDRESSING

Figure 5.1 illustrates a network setup where five (5) PCs are connected to a single switch using
straight-through ethernet cable.

Figure 5.2 shows the successful pinging of PC0 going to PC1, PC2, PC3, and PC4

Figure 5.3 shows the successful pinging of PC1 going to PC0, PC2, PC3, and PC4,

Figure 5.4 shows the successful pinging of PC2 going to PC0, PC1, PC3, and PC4

Figure 5.5 shows the successful pinging of PC3 going to PC0, PC1, PC2, and PC4

Figure 5.6 shows the successful pinging of PC4 going to PC0, PC1, PC2, and PC3

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this activity, we examined the concept of classful IP addressing by configuring a

basic network in Cisco Packet Tracer app. The setup included one switch (Switch0) and five PCs
(PC0 to PC4). Each PC was assigned an IP address from a specific IP class—either Class A, B, or C—
to observe whether devices within the same class could communicate properly. After assigning
the correct IP addresses and subnet masks based on the rules of their respective classes, we
tested connectivity using the Ping command. All ping tests were successful, indicating that the
PCs were within the same subnet and able to communicate with each other. The switch
successfully forwarded the packets, and the consistent addressing allowed each device to
recognize the others as part of the same network. This activity helped solidify our understanding
of classful IP addressing and demonstrated the importance of proper subnetting for successful
communication within a local network.
ACTIVITY 6: VERIFYING OF SUBNETTING

Figure 6.1 displays a network topology where five (5) PCs are connected to a single switch.

Figure 6.2 shows the failed pinging of PC0 going to PC1, PC2, PC3, and PC4 because PC0 have
different subnet mask compare to PC1, PC2, PC3, and PC4

Figure 6.3 shows the successful pinging from PC1 to PC2, PC3, and PC4 because all of these PCs
have the same subnet mask

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this activity highlighted the importance of correct subnetting in local network
communication. Through the configuration and testing of five PCs connected to a single switch,
we were able to observe the effects of both matching and mismatched subnet masks on network
connectivity. In the first scenario (Figure 6.2), PC0 was configured with a subnet mask that differed
from those of PC1 through PC4. As a result, all ping attempts initiated from PC0 to the other PCs
failed. This outcome demonstrates that even if devices are physically connected within the same
network topology (such as a switch), they cannot communicate at the network layer unless they
are within the same subnet. The differing subnet masks caused PC0 to interpret the other PCs as
being on different networks, thereby preventing successful communication. In contrast, the
second scenario (Figure 6.3) showed successful communication between PC1, PC2, PC3, and PC4.
These devices shared the same subnet mask and were correctly configured within the same
subnet range. This allowed them to recognize each other as part of the same local network,
resulting in successful ping responses. It confirmed that when subnetting is done properly, devices
can seamlessly exchange data across the network. Overall, this activity reinforced the theoretical
and practical understanding of subnetting. It emphasized the necessity of consistent IP address
planning and correct subnet mask assignment in achieving effective and reliable network
communication. Subnetting not only helps organize networks more efficiently but also enhances
performance and security by segmenting traffic appropriately.
ACTIVITY 7: VERIFYING VLAN

Figure 7.1 shows the topology of a network wherein four (4) PCs are connected to a single switch.

Figure 7.2 shows that pinging PC0 to PC1 was successful due to having the same VLAN. Moreover,
pinging PC0 to PC2, and PC3 was failed because PC2 and PC3 does not share the same VLAN to
PC0 and PC1.

CONCLUSION

This activity effectively demonstrated the role of VLANs (Virtual Local Area Networks) in
segmenting network traffic, even within a single switch. As shown in the topology (Figure 7.1),
four PCs were connected to the same switch. However, the results of the ping tests (Figure 7.2)
clearly illustrated how VLAN configuration impacts communication between devices. PC0 was
able to successfully ping PC1, confirming that both were part of the same VLAN and thus could
communicate freely within that logical network segment. In contrast, PC0 failed to ping PC2 and
PC3. This failure indicates that PC2 and PC3 were assigned to different VLANs from PC0 and PC1,
preventing them from communicating directly, even though they were connected to the same
physical switch. This activity highlights the importance of VLANs in modern networking for
improving security, reducing broadcast domains, and logically segmenting networks without
requiring separate physical infrastructure. It also reinforces the concept that devices must be in
the same VLAN to communicate at Layer 2 of the OSI model. Proper VLAN planning and
configuration are essential for ensuring intended connectivity and network efficiency.
ACTIVITY 8: STATIC ROUTING

Figure 8.1 shows a topology network where four (4) routers connected to a single switch, and
each switch is connected to every two (2) PCs

Figure 8.2 shows the successful pinging of PC0 going to PC1, PC2, PC3, PC4, PC5, PC6, and PC7

Figure 8.3 shows the successful pinging of PC1 going to PC0, PC2, PC3, PC4, PC5, PC6, and PC7

Figure 8.4 shows the successful pinging of random PCs in every router with switch that indicates
good connection

CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, the series of illustration effectively demonstrates the successful implementation

of static routing in the presented network topology. Figure 8.1 clearly outlines the physical
setup, consisting of four routers each connected to a central switch, which in turn connects to
two PCs per router. The subsequent PDU List Window screenshots (Figures 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4)
provide empirical evidence of seamless end-to-end connectivity. The “Successful” status for all
ping attempts from PC0 to all others, PC1 to all others, and random PC-to-PC communication
within each router’s domain confirms that the static routes are accurately established. This
robust connectivity across the entire network validates the correct configuration and
functionality of the static routing protocols.
ACTIVITY 9: DYNAMIC ROUTING

Figure 9.1 shows a network topology in having a dynamic routing of three (3) different routers
connected in single switch, having the switch attach two (2) different PCs on it

Figure 9.2 shows the successful pinging of PC0 going to PC1, PC2, PC3, PC4, and PC5

Figure 9.3 shows the successful pinging of PC5 going to PC0, PC1, PC2, PC3, and PC4

Figure 9.4 shows the successful pinging of random PCs in every router with switch that indicates
good connection

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the provided figures offer compelling evidence of a fully operational dynamic
routing network. The initial layout presents a network where three separate routers are linked
through a central switch, with each router supporting two PCs. The subsequent displays, showing
the results of network communication attempts, unequivocally confirm complete network
connectivity via a series of successful ping tests. One display shows PC0 communicating
successfully with all other PCs (PC1 through PC5), while another confirms PC5’s ability to reach
all other PCs (PC0 through PC4). Furthermore, a third display indicates successful pings among
various randomly selected PCs within each router’s domain, indicating a robust connection. The
uniform “Successful” status across all these communication tests clearly validates the accurate
configuration and efficient operation of the dynamic routing protocols, ensuring seamless device-
to-device communication across this multi-segment network.
ACTIVITY 10: INTER- VLAN

Figure 10.1 shows the network topology where one router is connected to a single switch, while
the switch is connected to three (3) PCs

Figure 10.2.1 and figure 10.2.2 demonstrates that all ping attempts—whether from PC0 to PC1
and PC2, from PC1 to PC0 and PC2, or from PC2 to PC0 and PC1 were successful

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the activity effectively demonstrates the successful implementation of Inter-VLAN

routing within the described network. The initial layout presents a topology where a single router
is connected to a switch, and this switch in turn connects to three PCs. Subsequent displays, which
show the results of network communication attempts, provide clear evidence of seamless
connectivity between devices across different VLANs. The successful ping attempts—specifically,
communication from PC0 to PC1 and PC2, from PC1 to PC0 and PC2, and from PC2 to PC0 and
PC1—confirm that the Inter-VLAN routing is correctly configured and operational. This validates
that despite being in separate logical broadcast domains, the PCs can effectively communicate
with each other through the router, ensuring full connectivity in this VLAN-segmented network.