[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Multi-vlan bridge without nat



Thanks for the reply.  Just to follow up, it looks as though the
BGE(Syskonnect) driver in 3.2 stable doesn't support a large enough MTU
size to handle the extra 2 bytes that tagging requires.  If one were to
man vlan(4), in diagnostics it says that realtek hardware supports this.
I may try a realtek interface.  Right now kernel compiles in 3.2 current
are broken and I can't seem to find enough source in 3.3 to recompile
the kernel.  I have heard that current and 3.3 have better drivers for
BGE(Syskonnect).  I'll post again if and when I get this to work, or
give up.
Thanks,
Andrew Eaton
-----Original Message-----
From: Henning Brauer [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 6:20 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Multi-vlan bridge without net
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 10:54:05PM -0600, Eaton, Andy wrote:
> First of all I jumped the gun on saying my set up worked ok.  It
doesn't
> even though it looked like it did at first.  The reason that it
doesn't
> however is because as soon as I brconfig the bridge, the 2900 and the
> 6509 get hacked off because of local vlan id and peer vlan id
> mismatches.  This throws the trunk into blocking mode on the 2900.
This
> of course means I will not pass any traffic at all.  I need to figure
> out how to get this to work before I can test the bridge itself.
Anyone
> have any ideas?
> 
> In response to Henning Brauer, I saw the message you sent that was
> answered by Jason L. Wright before I posted here.  When I read it I
> dismissed what Wright was talking about because he was somewhat
> contradicting.  He said, "What is supported is:
>   ifconfig vlan0 vlan 10 vlandev dc1 up
>   ifconfig vlan1 vlan 11 vlandev dc1 up
>   ifconfig vlan2 vlan 12 vlandev dc1 up
>   brconfig bridge0 add dc0 add dc2 add vlan0 add vlan1 add vlan2 up"
> 
> I am assuming that dc1 was a card in your firewall that was
> administratively down.
yes.
> He turned around and said that "vlans are not
> tied to interfaces which are themselves bridged".  Am I assuming
> correctly that dc1 was an administratively down NIC, if not what was
it?
> The only way I know to get dc0, dc1, and dc2 is to have 3 NIC's in the
> machine.  Which brings me to a question of why do I have to keep a NIC
> in my machine that stays administratively down to get the vlans to
work
> and it seems to me that they are still tied to an interface?
dc1 was just there, but served no purpose. it IS used nowadays for a
totally
different connection tho. it was just there for future use.
> Even if
> this does work on the bridge, the switches are going to block the
trunk
> interface because the bridge doesn't seem to be handling the local and
> peer vlan ID's correctly.
> 
> The question of the day is, has anyone ever gotten a setup like this
to
> work?  I am ready to drop what I have and go back to the drawing
board.
I didn't got bridgeing on vlan interfaces to work like desired, but that
was
with 3.0...
-- 
Henning Brauer, BS Web Services, http://bsws.de
[email protected] - [email protected]
Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity.
(Dennis Ritchie)