similar to: Bridging three vlans

<I apologize if this arrives twice... I sent it first from an non-subscribed address, don't know if that'll get to the list or not --JJ> Hi folks, I have an implementation question regarding bridging on a linux box between a catalyst trunk port and a cisco 26something w/802.1q subinterfaces. So right now, there's no vlan trunking going on on the link my bridging firewall sits

I have a question about bridges, vlans and switches. We had been using a bridge to provide filtering between our student labs and the main network. All the filtering does is check that a known IP matches a known MAC address, this stops students plugging in laptops and stealing an IP address. (And yes, we know about the MAC spoofing issues too) The connection was nice and simple,

I'm looking for some information regarding the interaction of KVM, VLANs, firewalld, and the kernel's forwarding configuration. I would appreciate input especially from anyone already running a similar configuration in production. In short, I'm trying to figure out if a current configuration is inadvertently opening up traffic across network segments. On earlier versions of CentOS

re can somebody tell me what am I doing wrong (at this late night hour), because vlan are not getting bridged at all. ifconfig eth0 0.0.0.0 up ifconfig eth1 0.0.0.0 up brctl addbr br0 brctl addif br0 eth0 brctl addif br0 eth1 ifconfig br0 up vconfig add br0 X vconfig add br0 Y X = vlan-ID (example: 222) Y = vlan ID (example: 223) # brctl show bridge name bridge

I am using 8021q vlans on my servers, and I cannot figure out how to make PXE/DHCP work. Has anyone figured out how to do this ?

hi, I have to configure Xen server and DomU''s which should be able to talk to different vlans - depending on services put on DomU''s. I would like to enslave 2 NICs via bond interface. Both NICs are on trunk ports which are configured in the same way, the same native vlan. I don''t know, if I have to add vlans tagging to eth* interfaces then enslave tagged eth*

Hi, The attached patches enables the bridge to filter and forward packets according to their IEEE 802.1q headers. The goals behind this change include : - Enable running STP on 802.1q tagged networks. STP packets must be untagged. It isn't obvious how else to enable STP with the current bridge and vlan code. - Add native support for an untagged vlan. Currently an untagged vlan can

For easy reading: http://www.karthaus.nl/r/ Hi, We used to have 1 single ip range (1.1.1.0/24) that had one uplink to a = switch of the colocation provider. Recently we got a second range 2.2.2.0/24 and a redundant uplink = directly on two routers. But our switch does not have spanning tree = protocol support so we cannot use them redundantly. We have set up the switch to have a vlan for both

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=400 ------- Additional Comments From pila@pilasecurity.com 2006-06-08 10:03 MET ------- I had the same trouble yesterday. It's very useful to have vlan over bridges. Think this situation: 1- You have a cluster of firewall 2- You have a DMZ net with two switches for redundancy 3- You have two nic on your firewall to connect to each

Hi, I'm using Vlans in my network as a way of preventing pier to pier communication - I only want nodes in the network to talk to the gateway (a linux box). I have successfully set up lots of sub interfaces using the vconfig too, one for each vlan. What I would like to be able to do is remove the ip address from each of these subinterfaces eth0.x and bridge them to eth0. I have successfully

Hi, I want to add 2 vlans by the following steps: 1. add the vlan interfaces: vconfig add eth0 100 --vlan100 vconfig add eth0 101 --vlan101 2. modify the network-bridge script by the websit, http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenNetworking#head-04ebcc1760dbc4678e83b116afa310dc0612dc39 Comment each time ifup or ifdown commands are executed.The reason is that ifdown ends with

On 03/20/2016 08:51 PM, Devin Reade wrote: > In a CentOS 7 test HA cluster I'm building I want both traditional > services running on the cluster and VMs running on both nodes On a purely subjective note: I think that's a bad design. One of the primary benefits of virtualization and other containers is isolating the applications you run from the base OS. Putting services other

On Thursday, 7 April 2016, James Hogarth <james.hogarth at gmail.com> wrote: > On 6 April 2016 at 19:21, Subscriber <ml-lists at agoris.net.ua > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > Hello James, > > > > Wednesday, April 6, 2016, 5:34:26 PM, you wrote: > > > > > Note that this is pretty much the last use case you cannot use > > >

Some switch hardware can generate the packets directly, negating the need for a box on every VLAN. Meraki hardware can do it, but you have to go through the dashboard so automating it isn't currently possible. Here is some documentation on forwarding WoL on catalyst 3750 switches from Cisco:

Hi, I have a situation where router has to see hosts  in multiple vlans with the same IP address The test scenario is : --------------------- |  eth0 |     br0   | &lt;-------&gt; eth1.25 | eth1.26 | eth1.27 --------------------- eth0 = Internet br0 = Lan 192.168.100.1/24 host 1= 192.168.100.11/24 eth1.25 host 2= 192.168.100.12/24 eth1.26 I need br0 to see all hosts in all vlans

Hi, I am configuring some servers in a high availability setup. The servers are connected to two switches with two LAN cards in each server. The two switches are connected directly to each other. The servers are configured to bridge eth0 and eth1 with spanning tree. Usually this makes sure eth1 is disabled, unless something happens to eth0. This way I can have one IP address on each server. Now

--On Monday, March 21, 2016 08:57:59 AM -0700 Gordon Messmer <gordon.messmer at gmail.com> wrote: > On 03/20/2016 08:51 PM, Devin Reade wrote: >> In a CentOS 7 test HA cluster I'm building I want both traditional >> services running on the cluster and VMs running on both nodes > > On a purely subjective note: I think that's a bad design. One of the >

I''m trying to implement simple untagged vlans on our switch and have misconfigured something.. ISP gw is on the default vlan1 (untagged) Router eth1 is setup on the switch with default vlan1 and member of vlan4. eth0 is default vlan4 which connects to the clients that are all default members of vlan4 eth0 is x.x.x.86/28 This is what clients are connecting to as their gw.. (no

I have 3 machines, T60 thinkpad with e1000 NIC Dell PowerEdge 2950 with bnx2 NIC HP DL360 G4P with tg3 NIC All running xen 3.03 / 2.6.16.29-xen I have a netbootable image with 2.6.16.29-xenU. This image when it boots creates a vlan eth0.4002, and then tries to communicate on that interface to a central server. On the machines with e1000 an bnx2 NICs, this works fine. On the

Hello list, I've posted here about this before, but I realise that it may have been assumed that the bridged vlans simply put a switch port in a blocking state and left my question ignored. So to recap. I have two tg3 interfaces named 'in' and 'out' and a bridge named 'br0' My vlan trunk is on the 'in' side of the network, and set as in.2, in.3 ... The