On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Gordon Messmer gordon.mess...@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 as apparently the
native VLAN is the
On 01/26/2015 06:00 PM, Boris Epstein wrote:
What sort of security implications did you have in mind? Just curious.
I think the common uses of VLANs are to segregate traffic to reduce
collisions, and to segment networks for security. If you've added VLAN
1 as the native VLAN, you might be
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 as apparently the
native VLAN is the one where Cisco does not bother to tag packets.
That's not a mistake, per se.
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.mess...@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
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Andrew Holway andrew.hol...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 January 2015 at 15:12, Boris Epstein borepst...@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
Stephen,
That is right - it is not on a trunk port. I guess this must be it.
Thanks.
Boris.
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Stephen Harris li...@spuddy.org wrote:
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 09:12:29AM -0500, Boris Epstein wrote:
OK... but why does it need to be a trunk port?
If you are on
OK... but why does it need to be a trunk port?
Boris.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 6:53 PM, SilverTip257 silvertip...@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
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 09:12:29AM -0500, Boris Epstein wrote:
OK... but why does it need to be a trunk port?
If you are on a trunk port then your machine needs to be configured
for VLANs. If you are not on a trunk port then your machine needs
to be configured normally.
It _sounds_ like you
On 25 January 2015 at 15:12, Boris Epstein borepst...@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
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
And additionally here are the detailed port configs on the switch end:
hqshow 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
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
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
denni...@conversis.de wrote:
Hi Boris,
what I'd like to know is the actual VLAN
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
Hi Boris,
Is the switch port mode tagged or untagged.
Thanks,
Andrew
On 24 January 2015 at 13:35, Boris Epstein borepst...@gmail.com wrote:
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
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
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 192.168.48.101, the
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 li...@spuddy.org wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 07:10:57PM -0500, Boris Epstein wrote:
This makes two
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Boris Epstein borepst...@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
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 5:48 PM, Boris Epstein borepst...@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
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
simply does not work.
Are you actually seeing VLAN tagged traffic, or is the cisco switch
just providing a normal stream?
At work we have hundreds of VLANs,
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Boris Epstein borepst...@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
We have lots of servers with a similar setup (i.e. tagged vlans and no
ip on eth0) and this works just fine.
What is the actual vlan configuration on your switchport?
Regards,
Dennis
On 24.01.2015 01:34, Boris Epstein wrote:
Steve,
Thanks, makes sense.
I just don't see why I have to
24 matches
Mail list logo
