From: Gianpietro Lavado (gianpietro1@gmail.com)
Date: Sat May 20 2006 - 13:37:40 ART
Hi Radoslav,
I think that would be a valid solution too, because they're only telling
you to tag every vlan in the trunk. If they told you something additional
like 'should not use the command 'vlan dot1q tag native'' (as IE does in a
later lab) or to 'use Cisco's propietary trunking protocol', only then the
only valid solution would be ISL for this case...
However, your email has made me think further, and that phrase "tagged with
VLAN header" makes me remember that ISL actually adds an additional header
to the frame, but dot1q only tags the existing header...so maybe when they
say "vlan header" thay are asking for the additional ISL header instead of
tagging the existing one...any ideas?
Gianpietro
On 5/20/06, Radoslav Vasilev <deckland@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Group,
>
> This one should be easy and still it got me thinking:
>
> The task is to create a trunk interface between two switches with the
> requirement of "all the trafifc should be tagged with VLAN header".
>
> The solution from InternetworkExpert (lab 2, task 1.2) is ISL.
> My question: could a dot1q trunk be a solution, if the addtional ``vlan
> dot1q tag native`` command is used?
>
> According to the docs, the effect will be tagging on egress port and
> dropping untagged native vlan frames on ingress port.
>
> What do you think?
>
>
> Rado
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 01 2006 - 06:33:22 ART