Hello, If I recall correctly, fall-back bridging is only for non-ip traffic. Though I haven't tested it I believe your configuration with the addition of "bridge 2 protocol ieee" should work.
Rich >I believe what you propose (fall-back bridging) will "work", >but will be performed in software. >Yuck. >Dale >On Dec 12, 2007, at 2:58 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: > Protocol 'ieee' is not an option, but 'vlan-bridge' is. I've > applied it to > the global config. > > Anything in: > http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/2005-May/020444.html > that would suggest this is not enough? > > Frank > > -----Original Message----- > From: Masood Ahmad Shah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:54 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: RE: [c-nsp] Bridging two VLANs together > > Well, If I understand you are talking about inter-vlan bridging. > Yes it > should work fine. You may need to add > > bridge 2 protocol ieee > > It's bridge protocol global configuration command to define the > type fo STP. > > > Regards, > Masood Ahmad Shah > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frank Bulk > Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 9:15 PM > To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: [c-nsp] Bridging two VLANs together > > We have a unique situation where our transport equipment can't > bridge the > traffic between two endpoints, so we would like to dump off each > link's VLAN > onto our router (7609-S with WS-X6748-GE-TX blades) where it can > perform the > bridging. Any reason why the following configuration wouldn't work? > > interface GigabitEthernet1/31 > description Customer networks > switchport > switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q > switchport trunk allowed vlan 221-222 > switchport mode trunk > end > > interface Vlan221 > description Site 1 > no ip address > bridge-group 2 > bridge-group 2 spanning-disabled > ! > interface Vlan222 > description Site 2 > no ip address > bridge-group 2 > bridge-group 2 spanning-disabled > ! > > Some of you might ask why not put the endpoints in the same VLAN, > but the > endpoints don't maintain an MAC address table so there's nothing to > make > them exchange traffic with each other. > > Regards, > > Frank > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/