From: Alexei Monastyrnyi (alexeim@orcsoftware.com)
Date: Mon Nov 13 2006 - 15:38:53 ART
With host interface supporting ISL I see no reasons for it not to wrap
each frame into ISL header, it should wrap all traffic... other (switch)
side being in trunking mode expects host to send ISL tagged frames...
without ISL header there is no ISL frame as entity...
I used to run ISL trunk on NT4 servers at my previous work, one has to
explicitly tell what VLANs interface is to participate in and assign IP
address per VLAN.
Do you know any switch configuration option for ISL trunking port saying
"tag all ingress traffic with no ISL header as VLAN XX" ?
A
Daniel_Steyn@Dell.com wrote:
> Well...it does LET you configure a native vlan on ISL. Having said
> that, ISL will ALWAYS tag egress traffic - even the "native" vlan. My
> belief is that (correct me if I am wrong, please) the native VLAN will
> mark INGRESS UNTAGGED traffic with the specified native vlan value. I
> do understand that between 2 switches running ISL, there should be no
> untagged traffic (they tag all VLANs), however, some NICs do allow you
> to run ISL in which the possibility of untagged traffic is present. But
> even if that were the case...traffic would be tagged upon the return, so
> I'm not sure to be honest. We'll have to fire it up in a lab and test.
>
> switch> (enable) show trunk 1/3
> * - indicates vtp domain mismatch
> # - indicates dot1q-all-tagged enabled on the port
> $ - indicates non-default dot1q-ethertype value
> Port Mode Encapsulation Status Native vlan
> -------- ----------- ------------- ------------ -----------
> 1/3 on isl trunking* 400
>
> Port Vlans allowed on trunk
> --------
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 1/3
> 4-7,9-12,26-27,34-35,39-40,76,87-88,90,93,127,134,187,200,216-217,220,23
> 3,251,255,399-402,408,410,415,500,725,802,874,985
>
> Brian/Scott or some of the other serious gurus may be able to provide us
> with the answer on this one.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: John Jones [mailto:acer0001@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 10:05 AM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com; Steyn, Daniel
> Subject: Does ISL Support...........?
>
>
> I would like info on this as well. I ask because I always thought that
> the concept of ISL and native VLANs didn't mix. I haven't tested this
> though. See below:
>
> ISL also encapsulates the entire frame, increasing the network overhead.
> Dot1q only places a header on the frame, and in some circumstances,
> doesn't even do that. There is much less overhead with dot1q as compared
> to ISL. That leads to the third major difference, the way the protocols
> work with the native vlan.
>
> The native vlan is simply the default vlan that switch ports are placed
> into if they are not expressly placed into another vlan. On Cisco
> switches, the native vlan is vlan 1. (This can be changed.) If dot1q is
> running, frames that are going to be sent across the trunk line don't
> even have a header placed on them; the remote switch will assume that
> any frame that has no header is destined for the native vlan.
>
> The problem with ISL is that is doesn't understand what a native vlan
> is. Every single frame will be encapsulated, regardless of the vlan it's
> destined for.
>
> http://www.networkliquidators.com/article-cisco-ccna-certification-how-a
> nd-why-switches-trunk.asp
>
> Also...
>
> http://www.ezinearticles.com/?Cisco-CCNA-/-CCNP-/-BCMSN-Exam-Review:--Tr
> unking-And-Trunking-Protocols&id=195572
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11/13/06, Alexei Monastyrnyi <alexeim@orcsoftware.com > wrote:
>
> and any details/URL to read on this?
>
> Daniel_Steyn@Dell.com wrote:
> > ISL does support a native VLAN in which ingress untagged VLANs
> are then
> > tagged with the vlan specified.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On
> Behalf Of
> > Alexei Monastyrnyi
> > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 9:19 AM
> > To: Rajiv
> > Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: Re: Does ISL Support...........?
> >
> > Hi.
> >
> > As per Q1, since ISL adds its specific L2 header to each
> frame, all
> > frames have to have it, otherwise the frame should be
> considered as
> > invalid. In this sense there should be no untagged frames for
> ISL.
> >
> > As per Q2, if I remember right, both protocols support up to
> 4095 VLANs.
> >
> > HTH
> > A.
> >
> > Rajiv wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I want to ask that Does ISL supports the processing of
> untagged
> >>
> > frames?
> >
> >>
> >> Also does 802.1q supports fewer VLANs than ISL?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Rajiv
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------
> >> Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
> >>
> >>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> >> _ 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 Dec 01 2006 - 08:05:46 ART