Hello Frank, I did get it working with my 2851. I used subinterfaces on my Gigabit trunk port Gi0/1. It only worked if I used the bridge-group under these subinterfaces and not under the int vlan. Maybe it is similar with your gear? Is something similar to "bridge 2 protocol ieee" available on your router?
Router2851# ! bridge irb ! ! interface GigabitEthernet0/1 no ip address duplex auto speed auto ! interface GigabitEthernet0/1.10 encapsulation dot1Q 10 bridge-group 2 bridge-group 2 spanning-disabled # necessary if using MST on the uplink switch -not necessary if Rapid STP or PVST ! interface GigabitEthernet0/1.11 encapsulation dot1Q 11 bridge-group 2 bridge-group 2 spanning-disabled # necessary if using MST on the uplink switch -not necessary if Rapid STP or PVST ! ! interface Vlan10 (didn't seem to work if I put the bridge-group 2 here and on SVI Vlan11) no ip address ! interface Vlan11 no ip address bridge 2 protocol ieee As a side note: A nice command to see what is going on is "show int irb" 2851#sh int irb GigabitEthernet0/0 Routed protocols on GigabitEthernet0/0: ip GigabitEthernet0/0.10 GigabitEthernet0/1 Not bridging this sub-interface. GigabitEthernet0/1.1 Not bridging this sub-interface. GigabitEthernet0/1.10 Bridged protocols on GigabitEthernet0/1.10: appletalk clns decnet ip Software MAC address filter on GigabitEthernet0/1.10 Hash Len Address Matches Act Type 0x00: 0 ffff.ffff.ffff 0 RCV Physical broadcast 0x2A: 0 0900.2b01.0001 0 RCV DEC spanning tree 0x68: 0 0017.59de.6c31 0 RCV Interface MAC address 0xC0: 0 0100.0ccc.cccc 0 RCV CDP 0xC1: 0 0100.0ccc.cccd 271 RCV SSTP MAC address 0xC2: 0 0180.c200.0000 0 RCV IEEE spanning tree 0xC2: 1 0180.c200.0000 0 RCV IBM spanning tree 0xC2: 2 0100.0ccd.cdce 0 RCV VLAN Bridge STP GigabitEthernet0/1.11 Bridged protocols on GigabitEthernet0/1.11: appletalk clns decnet ip Software MAC address filter on GigabitEthernet0/1.11 Hash Len Address Matches Act Type 0x00: 0 ffff.ffff.ffff 1531 RCV Physical broadcast 0x2A: 0 0900.2b01.0001 0 RCV DEC spanning tree 0x68: 0 0017.59de.6c31 0 RCV Interface MAC address 0xC0: 0 0100.0ccc.cccc 0 RCV CDP 0xC1: 0 0100.0ccc.cccd 317 RCV SSTP MAC address 0xC2: 0 0180.c200.0000 0 RCV IEEE spanning tree 0xC2: 1 0180.c200.0000 0 RCV IBM spanning tree 0xC2: 2 0100.0ccd.cdce 0 RCV VLAN Bridge STP ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:00:32 -0600 From: "Frank Bulk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Bridging two VLANs together To: <[email protected]> Message-ID: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAuAAAAAAAAAKTyXRN5/+lGvU59a+P7CFMBAN6gY+ZG84BMpVQcAbDh1IQA [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >I tried bridging but that didn't work. The VLAN mapping is non-starter >because it appears that only maps from dot1q to isl. So I ended up burning >2 Ethernet ports, dropping a VLAN on each, and then using a cross-over cable >between the two ports. It's not visually pretty, but it will do. >Regards, >Frank -----Original Message----- From: Collins, Richard (SNL US) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 5:07 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Re: [c-nsp] Bridging two VLANs together >Hello Frank, >I think that I will have a chance to lab this up next week. >I just wanted to say that the fall-back bridging is on the wrong track >and >it seems that only "non-routable" traffic will be bridged with fall-back >and not all traffic (i.e. IP). >Maybe someone else has some more experience here. >Rich -----Original Message----- From: ext Frank Bulk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:21 PM To: Collins, Richard (SNL US); [email protected] >Subject: RE: Re: [c-nsp] Bridging two VLANs together >The command "bridge 2 protocol ieee" is not available in the 12.2SR software >release on this router. >Bridging isn't really bridging if it's Layer-3 aware, is it? ;) >Frank -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Collins, Richard (SNL US) Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 4:25 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Bridging two VLANs together Hello, If I recall correctly, fall-back bridging is only for non-ip traffic. Though I haven't tested it I believe your configuration with the addition of "bridge 2 protocol ieee" should work. Rich >I believe what you propose (fall-back bridging) will "work", >but will be performed in software. >Yuck. >Dale >On Dec 12, 2007, at 2:58 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: > Protocol 'ieee' is not an option, but 'vlan-bridge' is. I've > applied it to > the global config. > > Anything in: > http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/2005-May/020444.html > that would suggest this is not enough? > > Frank > > -----Original Message----- > From: Masood Ahmad Shah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:54 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [c-nsp] Bridging two VLANs together > > Well, If I understand you are talking about inter-vlan bridging. > Yes it > should work fine. You may need to add > > bridge 2 protocol ieee > > It's bridge protocol global configuration command to define the > type fo STP. > > > Regards, > Masood Ahmad Shah > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frank Bulk > Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 9:15 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [c-nsp] Bridging two VLANs together > > We have a unique situation where our transport equipment can't > bridge the > traffic between two endpoints, so we would like to dump off each > link's VLAN > onto our router (7609-S with WS-X6748-GE-TX blades) where it can > perform the > bridging. Any reason why the following configuration wouldn't work? > > interface GigabitEthernet1/31 > description Customer networks > switchport > switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q > switchport trunk allowed vlan 221-222 > switchport mode trunk > end > > interface Vlan221 > description Site 1 > no ip address > bridge-group 2 > bridge-group 2 spanning-disabled > ! > interface Vlan222 > description Site 2 > no ip address > bridge-group 2 > bridge-group 2 spanning-disabled > ! > > Some of you might ask why not put the endpoints in the same VLAN, > but the > endpoints don't maintain an MAC address table so there's nothing to > make > them exchange traffic with each other. > > Regards, > > Frank > _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
