As Howard would say, "What problem are you trying to solve?" Trunking (frame-tagging, whatever...) between these switches may not be in your best interest... The CSS does provide that functionality, but in my experience, it is buggy, and not worth implementing. You may want to consider changing the design to provide a better solution...
You most certainly can use trunking (cisco-term) between a Catalyst and a non-Cisco switch by employing 802.1Q VLAN tagging, as opposed to ISL. On the CSS, the term trunking does not refer to frame tagging. Rather, it is in reference to port aggregation. I do not know if the CSS uses GVRP, but that is the mechanism that provides a similar function that a VTP domain does. There are also several other things to consider when doing this; if you are using ISL or 802.1Q, by default, there is a separate instance of STP running for each VLAN. There are 2 other modes of STP to consider as well, dependent on the code version, MISTP+, and PVST-MISTP mode. I am not familiar with the latter, but I am with the former. When dealing with the CSS, I believe it only supports one spanning tree for all the VLANs, so be aware of that when doing your planning. Matthew Crane wrote: >You final conclusion is correct, you cannot using VLAN tunks between a >catalyst & other Cisco switches. >CCB wrote: > >>I have a quick question about the Cisco 11000 series of content >>switches, >>does anyone know if the content switch is supposed to be able >>to trunk a >>link between the 11000 and a switch (5500,6500). The reason >>why I am asking >>is I have been working with a 11000 trying to setup a trunk >>link to provide >>our current VLAN's in the VTP domain to the content switch and >>I am unable >>to get the switch (Cat6509) to recognize the trunk link, when I >>do a "show >>trunk detail" on the switch it shows the port as trunking, but >>it does not >>recognize the trunk link. Both the Content Switch and the >>Cat6509 are set >>to use 802.1Q as the trunking type. I may be mislead but from >>everything I >>have tried I have come to the conclusion that the interface can >>only be >>trunked between two content switches and not a content switch >>to a L2/L3 >>switch. Any information would be helpful. >> >>Chris Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=28225&t=28157 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
