similar to: [Bridge] Very strange hotmail login error!

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 21:50:00 -0800 "kingz" <jzhang@cienettechnologies.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Sorry for bothering you! > > Now I am in deep trouble on Ethernet bridge and VLAN, I posted my issue, > but no reply, so I only beg for your help! > > Could you give me any comment, hint, way to fix my issue? Thank you very > much! > > The following

Hi All, I posted this question several days before, as if no one reply, any help, hint would be highly appreciated! PLEASE SAVE ME! Now I am having trouble in Ethernet bridge and 802.1Q VLAN, I have the following network: Internet | | Gateway | | <--------- If insert one Ethernet bridge box in here ,somethings changes | H u b ( one normal

Hi All, I am having trouble in Ethernet bridge and 802.1Q VLAN, I have the following network: Internet | | Gateway ( UPNP device) | | H u b ( one normal hub or switch , no VLAN) | \ | \ | \ Some 802.1Q VLAN Switches ( their uplink port is tagged) Our PCs connect with these VLAN Switches, they access Internet through the

Hi All, For my issue, first thanks to ALL, I have some idea of it. Also Thank Peter for his kind remind, I would become one good guy in this list. Most mentioned MTU, but how I assure that the problem is just MTU, how I debug it? Here is my bridge configuration: Internet | | Gateway | | eth0 Ethernet Bridge | eth1 | H u b ( one normal hub

Hi all, I am testing one QOS system, I want to control bandwidth by VLAN id. Here is my test network: Internet Gateway | | QOS control box ( Bridge box, Redhat 9, 2.4.28 kernel with ebtables-brnf-8_vs_2.4.28 patch) | | VLAN Switch | | PC PC In my QOS control box, it is a bridge box, I used Redhat 9, 2.4.28 kernel with ebtables-brnf-8_vs_2.4.28

Hi All, Today is a great day. My hotmail login error is fixed. Following Peter's advice, I used e1000 card, don't change any MTU , the hotmail login error went away! It is MTU issue, for VLAN tag traffice going through the bridge, the NICs in the bridge need support VLAN tag, e100/e1000 card can. Thanks to Peter, Stephen Hemminger, and All ! So far I know Intel e100/e1000 card can

I'm trying to bridge a mix of 802.1q tagged and untagged Ethernet frames through the new Ethernet over GRE functionality in kernel 2.6.28 The hosts handling the tunnel (192.168.200.6, 192.168.200.2) are connected together through with a simple cross cable through their eth1 interface. The switches are connected to their respective eth0 interface, which is bridged with their respective gretap

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).

OK... but why does it need to be a trunk port? Boris. On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 6:53 PM, SilverTip257 <silvertip257 at gmail.com> wrote: > 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

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

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

Hello You must add first: vlan (tagged) to eth2 eth2 interface is not tagged by default and not know vlan-s . It is like a cisco if you have 24 ports in cisco by default all ports are in vlan1. if you want to do trunk (with vlans) you myst add (vlans) to this ports (tagged or untagged) So you can compare that all interfaces in linux by default are in one vlan(but not tagged). (only for

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

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 09:04:20PM +0000, Etienne Dechamps wrote: > Unfortunately, I often notice that even with the advanced UDP hole > punching mechanisms that tinc uses, I still come across cases on my > network where two nodes behind NATs cannot talk to each other because > one of the nodes is behind a "strict" NAT [...]. This type of NAT > will stop any UDP hole

On 11 November 2015 at 21:57, David Nicol <davidnicol at gmail.com> wrote: > it is entirely possible to write code that uses threads on Win32 and forks > on POSIX by abstracting the communication bits generically. Signalling could > work over pipes on both. > > https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa365152(v=vs.85).aspx Hum... yes of course, but I

Hi Guus, Unfortunately, I often notice that even with the advanced UDP hole punching mechanisms that tinc uses, I still come across cases on my network where two nodes behind NATs cannot talk to each other because one of the nodes is behind a "strict" NAT that won't use consistent source ports for UDP packets that are sent to different destination addresses. More formally, this

http://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=795 Summary: RELATED doesn't accommodate multicast UDP solicitation resulting in unicast reply Product: netfilter/iptables Version: unspecified Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component:

Hello, My name is Ferm?n Gal?n and I work as Research Engineer at CTTC, Spain. I'm trying to configure a bridge with brctl to switch VLAN tagged traffic (802.1q), but I'm getting some problems. In particular, I've a physical interface (eth2) connected to a Cisco trunk port (so, the traffic to/from eth2 is tagged). I've added eth2 to a bridge ('brctl addif somebrige

Hi, At http://sourceforge.net/projects/ebtables/ you can find the following new releases: ebtables-brnf-3-vs-2.4.22 Changes: - let iptables see VLAN tagged IP traffic - bugfix for queued packets that get mangled in userspace - ebt_among module (Grzegorz Borowiak) - ebt_limit module (Tom Marshall) The patch compiles but I've done no further tests, but I probably didn't screw up.

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