Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 16:18:10 +0100 From: Karl Pielorz <kpielorz_lst@tdx.co.uk> To: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net>, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 10.0-R connected to Cisco switch (in 'trunk' mode with native VLAN) - doesn't work? Message-ID: <7DC3480C170619DBCF9BB9DD@Mail-PC.tdx.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <53D7A0AA.3090200@sentex.net> References: <E1661C199E3F6229F54C4F72@Mail-PC.tdx.co.uk> <53D7A0AA.3090200@sentex.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--On 29 July 2014 09:24 -0400 Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> wrote: > Would it not be better to have > > switchport trunk allowed vlan 2200-2300 > > otherwise its not clear to me what would be tagged and what would not be > tagged as vlan 2000, no ? I don't think that's the issue - I've had a couple of emails from other people who have this setup working, so I'd guess that's just a syntactical 'whats better / worse' kind of thing... > Do you really need to send a mix of tagged and > untagged frames on the port ? Yes, the project involves an element of migration - existing hosts being brought over will not have VLAN support, and a requirement is for them to just 'drop in' to the network, and still work. Thanks to those who replied (on and off list) - I've been able to create a test setup in house, which doesn't seem to have the issue - so I'll do some more digging around comparing that, to the remote kit / setup. I was just ruling out any known issues doing this kind of thing (which there doesn't appear to be). Regards, -Karl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7DC3480C170619DBCF9BB9DD>