From: Tony Paterra (apaterra@gmail.com)
Date: Sat May 20 2006 - 14:29:18 ART
I had the same exact thought when I went through this lab
recently.... If I ran across this on the real lab I would ask the
proctor and say something to the effect of "Will it be considered
passing if there is a 4-byte tag associate with all vlan's or is this
asking that all vlan tags be encapsulated inside a new packet."
On May 20, 2006, at 12:59 PM, Jian Gu wrote:
> how about simply config "vlan dot1q tag native"?
>
> Quote from Cisco Document Online:
> vlan dot1q tag native
>
> Use the *vlan dot1q tag native *global configuration command to enable
> tagging of native VLAN frames on all IEEE 802.1Q trunk ports. Use
> the *no
> *form
> of this command to return to the default setting.
>
>
> On 5/20/06, Gianpietro Lavado <gianpietro1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> __
>> 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
Tony Paterra
apaterra@gmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 01 2006 - 06:33:22 ART