similar to: VLAN issue

Less, You are 100% right. Of course I brought up my eth0 - but, like you said, with no IP. Meanwhile, I brought up eth0.48 with 192.168.48.100. However, until I would bring up eth0 with an IP address (any in the network) I would have no connection. Why? That's what I fail to understand. Boris. On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > On

Thank you everyone. OK, the mystery deepens, I guess. The machine does need to support several VLAN's, it is currently on a trunkport (8021q encapsulated), it made it into the ARP table - which I specifically tested for by physically unplugging the table, clearing the ARP table and plugging it back in. The ARP table currently looks like this: hq#show arp Protocol Address Age (min)

On 25 January 2015 at 15:12, Boris Epstein <borepstein at gmail.com> wrote: > OK... but why does it need to be a trunk port? > Because a trunk port will "trunk" the vlan. A VLAN is basically a 4 byte "tag" that gets injected into the packet header when the packet enters the VLAN network. When we trunk a VLAN we say to the switch "pass packets on VLAN x but

Do you need the whole configuration? On the switch end, we have the relevant VLAN (VLAN 48) with the assigned IP address of 192.168.48.101 and the range of ports (Gi1/0/1 - Gi1/0/8) assigned to that VLAN. Seems - and acts - like a legitimate setup and works fine, except for this particular instance. Thanks. Boris. On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn < dennisml at

OK, thanks again for all your help. I have resolved this, finally. The problem was that I configured VLAN 48 as the native VLAN on the trunk port.That was a mistake as apparently the native VLAN is the one where Cisco does not bother to tag packets. For now I set the native VLAN to VLAN 1 and that works. Cheers, Boris. On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Boris Epstein <borepstein at

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Boris Epstein <borepstein at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > I have a machine running Centos 6.6 connected to a port on a Cisco Catalyst > 3750 series switch. That port is part of VLAN 48. I have VLAN 48 on the > CentOS machine too. > > The IP network on VLAN 48 is 192.168.48.0/255.255.255.0. The address on the > CentOS side is

Andrew and Dennis are spot on. Their conclusions about your server being connected to an access port and not a trunk port would be my conclusion as well. On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn < dennisml at conversis.de> wrote: > Hi Boris, > what I'd like to know is the actual VLAN configuration of the switch > port (link-type and tagged and untagged VLANs).

And additionally here are the detailed port configs on the switch end: hq>show interface Gi1/0/3 switchport Name: Gi1/0/3 Switchport: Enabled Administrative Mode: trunk Operational Mode: trunk Administrative Trunking Encapsulation: dot1q Operational Trunking Encapsulation: dot1q Negotiation of Trunking: On Access Mode VLAN: 48 (VLAN0048) Trunking Native Mode VLAN: 48 (VLAN0048) Administrative

Hello all, I have a CentOS box that has a NIC (eth0) on which I defined 4 VLAN's (counting the NIC itself): eth0, eth0.1, eth0.2 and eht0.3. Initially the Cisco switch was not partitioned into VLAN's which means that the only VLAN running on it was the default one (VLAN 1). I have then played with VLAN's a bit on the switch and at this point have two: VLAN 1 (which is default and can

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Boris Epstein <borepstein at gmail.com> > wrote: > > Less, > > > > You are 100% right. Of course I brought up my eth0 - but, like you said, > > with no IP. Meanwhile, I brought up eth0.48 with 192.168.48.100. > > > > However,

Gordon, thanks! What sort of security implications did you have in mind? Just curious. Boris. On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Gordon Messmer <gordon.messmer at gmail.com> wrote: > On 01/25/2015 04:20 PM, Boris Epstein wrote: > >> I have resolved this, finally. The problem was that I configured VLAN 48 >> as >> the native VLAN on the trunk port.That was a mistake

Hi Boris, what I'd like to know is the actual VLAN configuration of the switch port (link-type and tagged and untagged VLANs). When I look at the switchport coniguration here I get (among other things): ... Port link-type: trunk Tagged VLAN ID : 8, 1624 Untagged VLAN ID : 10 ... Here is my suspicion: Your ports have an access link-type with an untagged VLAN ID of 48. That would

Just curious, if I have my Polycom IP 550 phone VLAN tag 30, will the packets I send from my PC(on the PC port of the phone) have the same VLAN tag? THe PC is sending untagged packets. This e-mail, facsimile, or letter and any files or attachments transmitted with it contains information that is confidential and privileged. This information is intended only for the use of the individual(s) and

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Boris Epstein <borepstein at gmail.com> wrote: > Less, > > You are 100% right. Of course I brought up my eth0 - but, like you said, > with no IP. Meanwhile, I brought up eth0.48 with 192.168.48.100. > > However, until I would bring up eth0 with an IP address (any in the > network) I would have no connection. Why? That's what I fail to

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

Steve, Thanks, makes sense. I just don't see why I have to effectively waste an extra IP address to get my connection established. Boris. On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 7:16 PM, Stephen Harris <lists at spuddy.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 07:10:57PM -0500, Boris Epstein wrote: > > > This makes two of us. I've done everything as you have described and it > >

Hi -- The environment we have is as follows, Domain controller: samba 3.0.14a running Solaris 9/X86 Authentication: openldap 2.2.14 Clients: Windows XP with SP2 The issue I met: If both clients and Samba server are on the same physical switch (also same subnet), the clients can join the domain and users can log into their domain accounts without any problem. However, if the clients

<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

Hello, I use a script network-multi vlan and network-bridge-vlan for multiple VLANs in domu. Several domu uses the bridge vlanbr30. Need to dom0 as was in this vlan''e. How? I tried to put a bridge interface ip, but with him until the rest domu in vlanbr30 not get through. How to understand the need to create a virtual interface (vifx.y) and add it to the bridge vlanbr30. How?

Hello. I''m trying to use vlan in domU, but have something strange: I created bridge on eth0. This interface was configured as trunk with vlan 300, 301. I use this bridge in my domU, and I can see tagged packets when run tcpdump in domU. Also I created interface on domU to work with vlan 300. On this interface I see untagged packets in vlan300. And everything looks fine. But when