From: Wade Edwards (wade.edwards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Dec 20 2001 - 16:58:15 GMT-3
I don't think it is possible with the 2500 series. This could be a
hardware issue or just a software issue. If it is a software issue I
still don't think Cisco will put it in the code for the 2500 series.
The speed of the 2500 series would be the greatest deterrent. You can
do it the 2600 series but with using dot1q only, no ISL.
L8r.
-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Hsieh [mailto:ccie21@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 6:06 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Trunking with 2901 switch
So is it possible to do dot1q trunking on a 10 baset 2500 series router?
>From: "Joseph Ezerski" <jezerski@broadcom.com>
>Reply-To: "Joseph Ezerski" <jezerski@broadcom.com>
>To: "'Wade Edwards'" <wade.edwards@powerupnetworks.com>,
>"'fwells12'" <fwells12@hotmail.com>, "'Ryaboy Vadim'"
><VRyaboy@acuson.com>, ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: Trunking with 2901 switch
>Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 09:47:16 -0800
>
>It does make sense that a regular Ethernet port should not do ISL. The
>added 30 Bytes of encapsulation makes the packet a mini-giant (or
larger,
>as
>the mini-giant is more akin to 802.1q) and much of the older 10BASET
>hardware does not support the added overhead. This is why you cannot
trunk
>on 2500s. The hardware won't support it. Even on the newer stuff, you
>cannot trunk ISL on 10-Ethernet. I just tried it on a 2600 and I can
trunk
>with 802.1q but not ISL.
>
>Just my 2 cents.
>
>-Joe
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
>Wade Edwards
>Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 8:56 AM
>To: jezerski@broadcom.com; fwells12; Ryaboy Vadim;
>ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: Trunking with 2901 switch
>
>
>But still does not make sense to artificially limit ISL also. I'm sure
>I can put an ISL formatted packet on the line if I had a packet driver
>on a PC with a 10Mb Ethernet NIC. I think this is more of a design
>consideration than a physical limitation. Of course if they say it only
>supports 100Mb and limit it in software to only support 100Mb
interfaces
>then people will be forced to buy routers with FastEthernet interfaces
>which are more expensive than Ethernet interfaces but have a higher
>margin. Sorry that was the conspiracist in me talking.
>
>There all out to get us and I am not paranoid.
>
>L8r.
>
> -----Original Message-----
>From: Joseph Ezerski [mailto:jezerski@broadcom.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 10:26 AM
>To: Wade Edwards; 'fwells12'; 'Ryaboy Vadim'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: Trunking with 2901 switch
>
>The funny part is, when all of us were studying for our CCNAs, and
>CCNPs, the books always hyped ISL and downplayed dot1q. They also
>always said, "with ISL you must always use a 100MB Ethernet
interfaces".
>I think the limitation is in ISL and not in Dot1Q. I am not sure. I
>have not tried to trunk ISL on an 10-ethernet port.
>
>-Joe
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Wade Edwards [mailto:wade.edwards@powerupnetworks.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 7:10 AM
>To: Joseph Ezerski; fwells12; Ryaboy Vadim; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: Trunking with 2901 switch
>
>
>There is nothing different from a 10Mb Ethernet interface and 100Mb
>Ethernet interface when it comes to being able to use trunking. If a
>100Mb Ethernet interface can add the 802.1q tags to a packet and send
it
>out on the wire so can a 10Mb Ethernet interface. It just means that
>anything on that wire needs to understand the 802.1q tags or they will
>get very confused. I never could understand the Cisco limitation that
>only 100Mb and faster Ethernet interfaces could support trunking.
>
>L8r.
>
> -----Original Message-----
>From: Joseph Ezerski [mailto:jezerski@broadcom.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 7:22 PM
>To: 'fwells12'; 'Ryaboy Vadim'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: Trunking with 2901 switch
>
>I beg to differ. You used to be right. However, someone posted here
>awhile
>back about trunking on a 10Base interface, using dot1q. We were
curious
>enough to duplicate this in our lab....and it worked. It floored me.
>So,
>you can trunk on 10base ethernet interfaces. There may be some code
>minimums there, like enterprise, etc. I would have to ask my co-worker
>which version he used. Of course, CCO has zero documentation on this
>and
>always refers to using Fast Ethernet ports to trunk.
>
>-Joe
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
>fwells12
>Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 3:19 PM
>To: Ryaboy Vadim; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: Re: Trunking with 2901 switch
>
>
>2501 will not trunk. You will need a 2620 at minimum. Trnking
requires
>a
>100Mb ethernet interface.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ryaboy Vadim" <VRyaboy@acuson.com>
>To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 3:05 PM
>Subject: Trunking with 2901 switch
>
>
> > Is it possible to set trunking between 2901 switch and 2501 router ?
> >
> > Can not get trunking to work. It shows status not-trunking.
> >
> > I've tried different ports, read all groupstudy and cisco
> >
> > web site ,but could not find relevant info.
> >
> > Seems 2901 is limited in trunk setup. But it has set trunk command.
>So,
> >
> > it should be possible to set up trunking, right?
> >
> > Any comments, examples ?
> >
> > Anybody successfully configured router-on-stick with 2901 and 2500
>series
> > router?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:32:45 GMT-3