From: joshua lauer (jslauer@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu May 12 2005 - 20:05:55 GMT-3
Hey guys,
I think I have a clue, it only mentioned broadcast traffic in the
question....not all traffic. I dont know the answer either, but I'll
hopefully find out shortly...It's a good one but I think I've seen this type
of thing before I just cant remember where or why.
josh
JOSHUA LAUER
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jongsoo kim" <bstrt2002@gmail.com>
To: "Brian McGahan" <bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com>
Cc: "Group Study" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>; "ccie2be" <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 7:01 PM
Subject: Re: dot.1q tunneling - IE Vol II, lab 9, task 1.4
> Brian
> OK
> it is a tough one as Tim is struggling.
> If I summarize the requirement in my understanding,
> SW2 fowards a broadcast frame from vlan2 to the vlan 200
> SW1 forwards a broadcast frame from vlan 200 to vlan 2
> This basically rules out fallback-bridging option because if bridges arer
> configured on SW1 and 2 between vlan 2 and 200, STP will do its job by
> blocking one of two bridge and if I configue bridge on one sw, then it
> wouldn't meet the requirement because both SWs need to allow intervlan
> access.
> Hmm, I can't think of another method allowing intervlan traffic. But I saw
> via some other email, using native vlan 802.1q trunk between two SWs.
> I initaiily thought trunk may failed if native valn mismatched but if
> trunk
> is manually configured, it may be ok.
> I also check CCO saying
> "Make sure the native VLAN for an 802.1Q trunk is the same on both ends of
> the trunk link. If the native VLAN on one end of the trunk is different
> from
> the native VLAN on the other end, spanning-tree loops might result"
> http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/c3550/12225se/3550scg/swv
> lan.htm#wp1200245
> So mismatching native vlan seems OK as long as there is no potential SPT
> loop.
> Having said that, Maybe lets say F0/23 on SW1 and SW2 are connected via
> 802.1q and assuming there is no vlan 200 in SW1 and no vlan 2 in SW2.
> What about the below?
> SW2
> F0/23
> switchport mode trunk
> switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
> switchport trunk native vlan 200
> SW1
> F0/23
> switchport mode trunk
> switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
> switchport trunk native vlan 2
> In this way, SW2 will assume any untagged traffic received via F0/23 as
> vlan 200
> and SW1 will assume any untagged traffic received via F0/23 as vlan 2.
> Let me know right or wrong for now as I am having fun with this :)
> Jongsoo
>
>
> On 5/12/05, Brian McGahan <bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> > Subscription information may be found at:
>> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>> >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> > Subscription information may be found at:
>> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jun 03 2005 - 10:11:57 GMT-3