From: Brian McGahan (bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com)
Date: Sat May 20 2006 - 17:00:17 ART
You're reading too much into the question, either answer is correct.
The terms "encapsulation" and "tag" are used interchangeably on CCO:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGIC%2CGGIC%3A2006-20%2CGGIC%
3Aen&q=site%3Awww.cisco.com+%22isl+tag%22
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGIC%2CGGIC%3A2006-20%2CGGIC%
3Aen&q=site%3Awww.cisco.com+%22isl+encapsulation%22
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGIC%2CGGIC%3A2006-20%2CGGIC%
3Aen&q=site%3Awww.cisco.com+%22dot1q+encapsulation%22
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGIC%2CGGIC%3A2006-20%2CGGIC%
3Aen&q=site%3Awww.cisco.com+%22dot1q+tag%22
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGIC%2CGGIC%3A2006-20%2CGGIC%
3Aen&q=site%3Awww.cisco.com+%22802.1q+tag%22
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGIC%2CGGIC%3A2006-20%2CGGIC%
3Aen&q=site%3Awww.cisco.com+%22802.1q+encapsulation%22
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
> Radoslav Vasilev
> Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 12:54 PM
> To: rocco ******
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: only tagged frames over a trunk
>
> Hi Group,
>
> Must be the long study day...
> All of you saying that the "vlan header" part requires ISL are
correct!
>
> Well known fact for all of us of course, and i shouldn't even call it
a
> "wording trap".
>
> Thanks to all!
> Rado
>
> On 5/20/06, rocco ****** <roccor21@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Rad,
> >
> > I think because the question indicates it's looking for a 'header'
that
> > ISL would be the only solution becasue it encapsulates the frame
opposed
> to
> > tagging it. Dot1q if i'm not mistaken only tags the frame and does
not
> use
> > encapusaltion. The difference between 26bytes and 4bytes.
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > From: *"Radoslav Vasilev" <deckland@gmail.com>*
> > Reply-To: *"Radoslav Vasilev" <deckland@gmail.com>*
> > To: *"Cisco certification" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>*
> > Subject: *only tagged frames over a trunk*
> > Date: *Sat, 20 May 2006 17:22:08 +0100*
> > MIME-Version: *1.0*
> > Received: *from lists.groupstudy.com ([207.44.210.9]) by
> > bay0-mc7-f7.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
Sat,
> > 20 May 2006 09:22:21 -0700*
> > Received: *(from sympa@localhost)by lists.groupstudy.com (
> > 8.12.11.20060308/8.11.6) id k4KGMJva002008;Sat, 20 May 2006 12:22:19
-
> 0400
> > *
> > Received: *from groupstudy.com (www.groupstudy.com
[209.51.144.7])by
> > lists.groupstudy.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.11.6) with ESMTP id
> > k4KGM8qf001974for <ccielab@lists.groupstudy.com>; Sat, 20 May 2006
> > 12:22:08 -0400*
> > Received: *from groupstudy.com (groupstudy.com [127.0.0.1])by
> > groupstudy.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.10) with ESMTP id
> > k4KGMAxL019021GroupStudy Mailer; Sat, 20 May 2006 12:22:10 -0400*
> > Received: *(from listserver@localhost)by groupstudy.com
> (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/Submit)
> > id k4KGMAcw019019for ccielabxhiddenx; Sat, 20 May 2006 12:22:10
-0400*
> > Received: *from wx-out-0102.google.com (wx-out-0102.google.com [
> > 66.249.82.202]) by groupstudy.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.10) with
ESMTP
> id
> > k4KGMAjQ018999 GroupStudy Mailer; Sat, 20 May 2006 12:22:10 -0400*
> > Received: *by wx-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id i31so682789wxd
for <
> > ccielab@groupstudy.com>; Sat, 20 May 2006 09:22:08 -0700 (PDT)*
> > Received: *by 10.70.11.20 with SMTP id 20mr3374830wxk; Sat, 20 May
2006
> > 09:22:08 -0700 (PDT)*
> > Received: *by 10.70.35.15 with HTTP; Sat, 20 May 2006 09:22:08
-0700
> > (PDT)*
> >
> >
> > >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