28.04.2018 21:57, Freddie Cash wrote:
> If you want to think of it in switch terms, FreeBSD supports access ports
> (untagged vlan) and trunk ports (tagged vlans).
> But there's no support for hybrid ports (tagged vlans with a PVID on the port
> that adds tags to untagged traffic).
Not entirely
28.04.2018 20:16, Abdullah Tariq wrote:
> Sorry but getting a little confused here.
> Lets say i have 2 interfaces igb0, igb1 and i want them to have tagged
> traffic.
> I create vlan1 tagged 10 on igb0
> and vlan2 tagged 10 on igb1
> Next i create bridge0, assign vlan1 and vlan2 (no IPs on eith
>
> If you want to think of it in switch terms, FreeBSD supports access ports
> (untagged vlan) and trunk ports (tagged vlans). But there's no support for
> hybrid ports (tagged vlans with a PVID on the port that adds tags to
> untagged traffic).
>
> What you are trying to do is create a hybrid por
If you want to think of it in switch terms, FreeBSD supports access ports
(untagged vlan) and trunk ports (tagged vlans). But there's no support for
hybrid ports (tagged vlans with a PVID on the port that adds tags to
untagged traffic).
What you are trying to do is create a hybrid port with a vlan
On Sat, Apr 28, 2018, 6:17 AM Abdullah Tariq wrote:
> >
> > No, its simplier: single bridge contains all interfaces corresponting to
> > ports of single vlan.
> > You can bridge plain igb* interfaces for untagged ports; or bridge
> > interface igbX with interface vlanY
> > when one port carries u
>
> No, its simplier: single bridge contains all interfaces corresponting to
> ports of single vlan.
> You can bridge plain igb* interfaces for untagged ports; or bridge
> interface igbX with interface vlanY
> when one port carries untagged frames of vlan and another ports carries
> tagged frames o
28.04.2018 19:10, Abdullah Tariq wrote:
> However, we still have several ways to bridge tagged traffic
> by means of creation multiple bridges (one per vlan) or using
> ng_vlan+ng_bridge to do the same.
>
> bridge1 will contain vlan 1
> bridge2 will containn vlan2
>
> and bridge3 sho
28.04.2018 19:10, Abdullah Tariq wrote:
> You are still ignoring requests to not top-post and I'm getting tired to
> fix it for you.
> I may just stop responding.
> Apologies again, last i thought i had replied to all after your first
> pointing out😷
You don't understand what top-posti
>
> You are still ignoring requests to not top-post and I'm getting tired to
> fix it for you.
> I may just stop responding.
>
Apologies again, last i thought i had replied to all after your first
pointing out😷
If you really want to bridge 802.1q trunks, you should be stating so from
> the beginn
28.04.2018 16:26, Abdullah wrote:
You are still ignoring requests to not top-post and I'm getting tired to fix it
for you.
I may just stop responding.
>> You still top-posting. Please don't.
>> It is possible to replicate *behaviour* but not configuration style.
>> Unless you have re
Configuration style doesn't really matter. I am trying to figure out how to
make tagged traffic talk in a bridge. I have always had good support from
bsd people over the last 4 5 years since i started using it, maybe it's
time to add something to it :)
What gives me hope is that linux (cumulus lin
28.04.2018 12:49, Abdullah Tariq wrote:
You still top-posting. Please don't.
> > And please do not top-post and reply to the list, not privately.
> Thank you.
> > sorry for that.
> > They do but that's not what you need. You deal with untagged frames
> on igb5,
> > s
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221676
Wesley Moore changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||w...@wezm.net
--- Comment #3 from W
So it is not possible to replicate behaviour of standard L2 switches using
freebsd where we have different VLANs, access and trunk ports?
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 9:16 PM, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> 27.04.2018 22:57, Abdullah Tariq wrote:
>
> > And please do not top-post and reply to the list,
14 matches
Mail list logo
