On 2009/02/22 22:00, Daniel Ouellet wrote: > > I also discover oppose to what I thought that the native vlan would be > the standard #1 as native, but when configure as 1, I couldn't get it > to work.
> So, I guess the native vlan is no vlan at all (;> Is that true? ah, you're used to cisco switches then. yes, that's correct. vlan 1 is "special". most other vendors make a distinction between untagged and tagged vlans (I find cisco's treatment of this quite un-intuitive). > I must admit, the configuration might be a bit weird and hopefully it's > not a side effect and can scale well, but I do very much appreciate the > feedback and for the archive in case someone else need this weird > setup, here it is and it does work, so far anyway. Will see when I > start to beat it up more! (;> it should be fine. it's not uncommon to bridge vlans like this, it's a good way to protect machines against others in the same subnet (much less wasteful than giving customers a /30 for their server and much cleaner than the nasty DHCP hacks some providers of cheap "root servers" make).
