From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 29 15:18:14 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A500BC for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 15:18:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.tdx.com (mail.tdx.com [62.13.128.18]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5B2E2B56 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 15:18:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Mail-PC.tdx.co.uk (storm.tdx.co.uk [62.13.130.251]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.tdx.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/) with ESMTP id s6TFIBPP070196 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 29 Jul 2014 16:18:11 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 16:18:10 +0100 From: Karl Pielorz To: Mike Tancsa , 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: <53D7A0AA.3090200@sentex.net> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 15:18:14 -0000 --On 29 July 2014 09:24 -0400 Mike Tancsa 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