> > a picture would do wonders to understand what he wants.
Apologies for being AWOL Attaching an image link: https://ibb.co/nt1s4S On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 8:39 PM, Julian Elischer <jul...@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 1/5/18 11:16 pm, Freddie Cash wrote: > > On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 6:08 AM, Julian Elischer <jul...@freebsd.org> > wrote: > >> On 1/5/18 2:08 am, Eugene Grosbein wrote: >> >>> 01.05.2018 1:03, Freddie Cash wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Eugene Grosbein <eu...@grosbein.net >>>> <mailto:eu...@grosbein.net>>wrote: >>>> >>>> > What the OP is trying to do is have PC1 send untagged packets to >>>> igb0 on FreeBSD which is configured for tagged vlan 5. >>>> > Then bridge the packets to igb1 which is also configured for >>>> tagged vlan 5. Then send the packets out, untagged, to PC2. >>>> >>>> Why would one want to "configure igb0 for tagged vlan 5" when igb0 >>>> supposed to receive untagged frames? >>>> This does not make any sense. One should just bridge igb0 as is, >>>> without creation vlan on it and problem's solved. >>>> >>>> Yes, agree. What the OP wants to do can't be done. :) >>>> >>> Perhaps, you missed a message from him when he states that configuration >>> style does no matter for him really. >>> So, what he wants can be done, just using different style. >>> >>> >> >> a picture would do wonders to understand what he wants >> . >> > > A FreeBSD system with multiple NICs, with separate vlans internally to > separate untagged traffic between PCs. > > https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/bridge-with-vlans-not-working.65592/ > > https://forums.freebsd.org/attachments/capture-png.4744/ > > https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/bridge-with-vlans-not- > working.65592/#lg=post-385584&slide=0 > > The "easy" solution is to just bridge together the interfaces you want to > be part of the same "virtual lan", thus allowing traffic between those > stations only. Want PC1 and PC2 to be part of one vlan? Then bridge > together igb0 and igb1. Want PC3, connected to igb2, and PC4, connected to > igb3, to be part of a separate "virtual lan"? Then create a separate > bridge between igb2 and igb3. No vlan tags required anywhere. > > > ok so does he want to have those vlans terminated at his box or just pass > them through? > and if they are untagged, why is it being called a vlan? > untagged vlan is what we call "ethernet". > > if it's untagged then only the internal state of the switches decides > which "virtual network" it is on.. > > > > > But, the OP (in the forum thread and here) keeps getting hung up on > "needing" vlan tags on the NICs, trying to treat the FreeBSD box like a > switch with hybrid ports and PVIDs set on the ports. > > -- > Freddie Cash > fjwc...@gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
