Thanks for the reply. Just to follow up, it looks as though the BGE(Syskonnect) driver in 3.2 stable doesn't support a large enough MTU size to handle the extra 2 bytes that tagging requires. If one were to man vlan(4), in diagnostics it says that realtek hardware supports this. I may try a realtek interface. Right now kernel compiles in 3.2 current are broken and I can't seem to find enough source in 3.3 to recompile the kernel. I have heard that current and 3.3 have better drivers for BGE(Syskonnect). I'll post again if and when I get this to work, or give up.
Thanks, Andrew Eaton -----Original Message----- From: Henning Brauer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 6:20 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Multi-vlan bridge without net On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 10:54:05PM -0600, Eaton, Andy wrote: > First of all I jumped the gun on saying my set up worked ok. It doesn't > even though it looked like it did at first. The reason that it doesn't > however is because as soon as I brconfig the bridge, the 2900 and the > 6509 get hacked off because of local vlan id and peer vlan id > mismatches. This throws the trunk into blocking mode on the 2900. This > of course means I will not pass any traffic at all. I need to figure > out how to get this to work before I can test the bridge itself. Anyone > have any ideas? > > In response to Henning Brauer, I saw the message you sent that was > answered by Jason L. Wright before I posted here. When I read it I > dismissed what Wright was talking about because he was somewhat > contradicting. He said, "What is supported is: > ifconfig vlan0 vlan 10 vlandev dc1 up > ifconfig vlan1 vlan 11 vlandev dc1 up > ifconfig vlan2 vlan 12 vlandev dc1 up > brconfig bridge0 add dc0 add dc2 add vlan0 add vlan1 add vlan2 up" > > I am assuming that dc1 was a card in your firewall that was > administratively down. yes. > He turned around and said that "vlans are not > tied to interfaces which are themselves bridged". Am I assuming > correctly that dc1 was an administratively down NIC, if not what was it? > The only way I know to get dc0, dc1, and dc2 is to have 3 NIC's in the > machine. Which brings me to a question of why do I have to keep a NIC > in my machine that stays administratively down to get the vlans to work > and it seems to me that they are still tied to an interface? dc1 was just there, but served no purpose. it IS used nowadays for a totally different connection tho. it was just there for future use. > Even if > this does work on the bridge, the switches are going to block the trunk > interface because the bridge doesn't seem to be handling the local and > peer vlan ID's correctly. > > The question of the day is, has anyone ever gotten a setup like this to > work? I am ready to drop what I have and go back to the drawing board. I didn't got bridgeing on vlan interfaces to work like desired, but that was with 3.0... -- Henning Brauer, BS Web Services, http://bsws.de [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity. (Dennis Ritchie)
