From: Brian McGahan (bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com)
Date: Thu May 12 2005 - 19:00:51 GMT-3
No BVI. Here is the task for the benefit of the group:
1.4. The port attached to R2 on SW1 is assigned to VLAN 2, while the port attached to BB2 on SW2 is assigned to VLAN 200. Configure the network so that when SW2 receives a broadcast frame originated in VLAN 2 on SW1 it is forwarded to BB2, and when SW1 receives a broadcast frame originated in VLAN 200 on SW2 it is forwarded to R2.
4 Points
Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593
bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com
Internetwork Expert, Inc.
http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
Toll Free: 877-224-8987 x 705
Outside US: 775-826-4344 x 705
24/7 Support: http://forum.internetworkexpert.com
Live Chat: http://www.internetworkexpert.com/chat/
________________________________________
From: Jongsoo kim [mailto:bstrt2002@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 4:56 PM
To: Brian McGahan
Cc: ccie2be; Group Study
Subject: Re: dot.1q tunneling - IE Vol II, lab 9, task 1.4
Brian
What about BVI interface in router?
On 5/12/05, Brian McGahan <bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com> wrote:
Tim,
Neither fallback bridging nor .1q tunneling are the solution ;)
HTH,
Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593
bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com
Internetwork Expert, Inc.
http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
Toll Free: 877-224-8987 x 705
Outside US: 775-826-4344 x 705
24/7 Support: http://forum.internetworkexpert.com
Live Chat: http://www.internetworkexpert.com/chat/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com ] On Behalf
Of
> ccie2be
> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 4:00 PM
> To: 'Jongsoo kim'; Group Study; Brian McGahan; Brian Dennis
> Subject: RE: dot.1q tunneling - IE Vol II, lab 9, task 1.4
>
> Hi Jongsoo,
>
> I tried your config but, alas, it didn't work.
>
> I also tried using that same config on both switches but that didn't
work
> either.
>
> What bothers me most is that even if this did work, I can't figure out
how
> it would.
>
> BTW, I didn't change anything on the rtr's on either side of the
Cat's. I
> left those interfaces with just the ip address configured.
>
> When you think about it, this I don't believe this should work.
Here's my
> thinking.
>
> Fallback bridging is for NON IP traffic ie non-routable traffic.
>
> But, for this scenario to work properly, I need to be able to ping
from
> rtr-1 to rtr-2.
>
> Now, the Cat port connected to rtr-1 is configured to be in vlan 2 and
the
> cat port connected to rtr-2 is in vlan 20.
>
> And, the cat's are trunked together via 802.1q
>
> With Fallback bridging configured, what happens to a packet from rtr-1
> when
> Cat-1 gets it?
>
> Since it's an ip packet, I think the cat will process it just like any
> normal ethernet frame ie it will see if the dest mac addr is in the
mac
> table for vlan 2.
>
> Not finding it there, it will send it to all ports in vlan 2 including
the
> trunk port connecting the 2 Cat's. When the 2nd Cat gets it, I think
Cat-
> 2
> will drop it as it won't find that dest mac addr in it's vlan 2 table
even
> though vlan 2 is bridged to vlan 20.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Tim
>
> _____
>
> From: Jongsoo kim [mailto:bstrt2002@gmail.com ]
> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 3:53 PM
> To: ccie2be
> Subject: Re: dot.1q tunneling - IE Vol II, lab 9, task 1.4
>
> I am doing fine.
>
> Can you just do something like the below on one of switch without
> configuring ip address?
>
> interface Vlan 2
> bridge-group 1
> interface Vlan 20
> bridge-group 1
> bridge 1 protocol vlan-bridge
>
>
> Jongsoo
>
> On 5/12/05, ccie2be <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> Hey Jongsoo,
>
> It's good to hear from you. I hope you're doing well. As for me, I'm
> working through the new IE practice labs as you can see.
>
> At the moment, I'm working on labs for which the Solutions haven't as
yet
> been posted.
>
> I considered using Fallback Bridging to fulfill this task but I can't
see
> how to use it as there are no L3 Cat ports involved in this config.
>
> Fallback Bridging requires that L3 ports be put into a bridge-group.
In
> this scenario, I could make the port connecting rtr-1 or rtr-2 a L3
port
> but
> what about the trunk connecting the 2 Cat's?
>
> If you have any ideas, please show me what you would configure.
>
> Thanks, Tim
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Jongsoo kim [mailto: bstrt2002@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 1:22 PM
> To: ccie2be
> Subject: Re: dot.1q tunneling - IE Vol II, lab 9, task 1.4
>
> How are you doing. Tim?
>
> if all you have to do is to make vlan 20 and 2 communicated in layer
2,
> I think you need to configure Vlan-bridge in either CAT 1 or CAT2 .
>
> Jongsoo
>
> On 5/12/05, ccie2be < ccie2be@nyc.rr.com <mailto:ccie2be@nyc.rr.com> >
> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I'm trying to figure out how to configure this. I think dot.1q is the
way
> to go but I can't test this with the equipment I have.
>
> rtr-1 ------------- Cat-1 --- Cat-2 ----------------- rtr-2
> .2 < vlan 2 > < vlan 20> .254
>
> | < 192.10.1.x/24 >|
>
> 802.1q trunks have been configured between the 2 3550's and both Cat's
> have
> their system mtu set as 1504.
> I've configured each cat port connecting the rtr's as follows:
>
> Cat-1
> interface FastEthernet0/2
> switchport access vlan 2
> switchport mode dot1q-tunnel
> no ip address
> no cdp enable <- added by default
> spanning-tree bpdufilter enable <- added by default
>
> Cat-2
> interface FastEthernet0/24
> switchport access vlan 20
> switchport mode dot1q-tunnel
> no ip address
> no cdp enable
> spanning-tree bpdufilter enable
>
> With the rtr's I'm using I can't configure 802.1q trunking on the
ethernet
> ports connected to the Cat's. And, when I put the ip addr on the phy
int,
> pings don't work from rtr-1 to rtr-2.
>
> Am I approaching this problem correctly? If I were able to configure
the
> ethernet ports with 802.1q trunks, would this work?
>
> TIA, Tim
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jun 03 2005 - 10:11:57 GMT-3