Janusz Dziedzic <[email protected]> wrote: > pt., 9 wrz 2022 o 12:30 Andrey Jr. Melnikov <[email protected]> napisał(a): > > > > Janusz Dziedzic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > [-- text/plain, encoding quoted-printable, charset: UTF-8, 86 lines --] > > > > > pt., 9 wrz 2022 o 04:32 LiXiong Liu <[email protected]> napisał(a): > > > > > > > > ### swconfig & DSA VLAN Configuration Comparison > > > > [....] > > > > > > #bridge vlan show > > > > port vlan-id > > > > lan1 100 PVID Egress Untagged > > > > lan2 100 PVID Egress Untagged > > > > lan3 1 PVID Egress Untagged > > > > lan4 1 PVID Egress Untagged > > > > lan5 1 PVID Egress Untagged > > > > 10 > > > > br-lan 1 PVID Egress Untagged > > > > 10 > > > > > > > > > We are using smth like this: > > > > > config bridge-vlan 'vlan1' > > > option name 'vlan1' > > > option device 'br-lan' > > > option vlan '1' > > > option flags 'untagged pvid' > > "untagged pvid" is tautology. PVID stands for "Port VLAN ID" - is a default > > VLAN ID that is assigned to an access > > port. Access ports only for untagged (stripped tag) frames. So, drop > > 'untagged' > > from options or 'pvid'. > >
> What in case I would like to have smth like: > br-lan 1 PVID Egress Untagged > 10 Egress Untagged > bridge vlan <> - tool allow this configuration. Why we should add any > limitation in UCI? Problem not in configuration, problem in misleading UCI/tools output - PVID *always* untagged. _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
