On Wed, 17 May 2006 16:25:20 -0500 "Bill Marquette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/17/06, Ispánovits Imre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 17 May 2006 15:32:41 -0500 > > "Bill Marquette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On 5/17/06, Ispánovits Imre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > True, seconded :) Using dedicated (untagged) vlans for each port in a > > > > > trunk configuration is a good idea too if your switch supports this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trunked vlans? How this looks like? > > > > > > Again, I think my terminology is getting the better of me. > > > > > > Lets say port 5 is in vlan 5, but you want it to be a trunk port, not > > > an access port, you still keep it in vlan 5, but you put vlans 6-10 in > > > your trunk statement. The native vlan for the port is 5, the tagged > > > vlans are 6-10. I can't speak to any switches other than Cisco and > > > even then it's not my job to configure them, I know enough to make it > > > work on the firewall side. > > > > > > > I don't know how is it with Cisco, but with this D-Link switch "considers a > > trunk as a single port entity, regardless of the trunk composition. Each > > enabled trunk is comprised of four contigous ports." (Sorry it is from the > > manual). > > Is it the same as what you talked about? > > Nope. In cisco terminology that sounds like a portchannel...heh :) > Then it's better to find some Cisco education material to learn more about this terminology, because it seems to be the most widely spread.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
