johnman johnman wrote:
> Have couple of VLAN some with ISL and other with 802.1Q.
>
> Can I trunk all of them (ISL and 802.1Q) on one physical fastethernet
> on my 2620 router ?
VLANs don't run trunk encapsulations, trunks do so I don't understand
your question. The trunk encap is how
No you don't (have a couple of VLANs, some with ISL and others with 802.1q).
The trunking protocol is not an attribute of a VLAN, it is an attribute of a
physical (trunking) port. You have some VLANs, put them on whatever trunk
port you desire.
Fred Reimer - CCNA
Eclipsys Corporation, 200 Ashfo
johnman johnman wrote:
> Have couple of VLAN some with ISL and other with 802.1Q.
>
> Can I trunk all of them (ISL and 802.1Q) on one physical fastethernet
> on my 2620 router ?
VLANs don't run trunk encapsulations, trunks do so I don't understand
your question. The trunk encap is how
No you don't (have a couple of VLANs, some with ISL and others with 802.1q).
The trunking protocol is not an attribute of a VLAN, it is an attribute of a
physical (trunking) port. You have some VLANs, put them on whatever trunk
port you desire.
Fred Reimer - CCNA
Eclipsys Corporation, 200 Ashfo
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 1:42 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Trunking ISl and 802.1q [7:74059]
>
> How much or how did you pick up a 3550? I thought they were so expensive?
> Please do tell...
> **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Stor
How much or how did you pick up a 3550? I thought they were so expensive?
Please do tell...
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=74066&t=74059
--
**Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store:
http
Hello,
Kind of confused on switch types and trunking.
Do I understand correctly that WS-c2950X can not do ISL?
And that WS-C2912-XL-EN can?
Can 19xx do ISL or 802.1q?
I am going of this link
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk389/tk390/technologies_configuration_examp
le09186a00800949fd.shtml
Can s
Hi Grant,
Thanks.
That is very useful because I was really getting mixed - just the state of
mind I should not be in as I prepare for BCMSN 640-604 next week.
That is very useful, believe me.
Cheers!
Mwalie
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70708&t=70700
--
Hi, Mwalie
yes, the trunk link can be established even if between different VTP domain,
the following is the detailed explaination.
A trunk link can be negotiated between two switches only if both switches
belong to the same VLAN Trunking Protocol (VTP
In mail.net.groupstudy.pro, you wrote:
> I'm attempting to configure trunking on a C2924-XL switch runiing IOS
> version Version 11.2(8.10)SA6 from file c2900XL-hs-mz-112.8.10 SA6.bin.
I've
> read CCO enough to realize that the command under interface configuration
> mode would be "switchport
Richard,
Trunking is only supported in the enterprise image release. You do not
have that image
>From: "Richard Burdette" >Reply-To: "Richard Burdette" >To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Trunking on C2924-XL [7:62881] >Date: Wed,
12 Feb 2003 16:41:19 GMT > >Hello All, > >I'm attempting to con
dot1q on ethernet was added in IOS 12.0(1)T and the
native keyword was added in 12.1(3)T. Before that, had
to put the native VLAN cfg on the main/physical
interface.
--- Doug Oh wrote:
> On the 2611 platform, VLAN encapsulation is
> supported for Ethernet as of
> 12.1. Bridging on a subinterface
On the 2611 platform, VLAN encapsulation is supported for Ethernet as of
12.1. Bridging on a subinterface is not supported until 12.2, however.
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=57547&t=57539
--
FAQ, list archives, an
- Original Message -
From: "pauldongso"
To:
Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2002 2:17 PM
Subject: trunking over ethernet [7:57539]
Hi Paul,
> Does ethernet interface support trunking? (isl and dot1.q, or just one
> of those)?
> The reason for asking is all the doco i ever read only say "c
ybe some day...
Rik
-Original Message-
From: Priscilla Oppenheimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 9:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Trunking over Aironet bridge? [7:42833]
An ISL frame can be as big as 1518 + 30 = 1548 bytes. The original frame is
encapsulated
An ISL frame can be as big as 1518 + 30 = 1548 bytes. The original frame is
encapsulated in a 26-byte header and a 4-byte CRC.
An 802.1Q frame can be as big as 1522 bytes. 802.1Q inserts a 4-byte header
immediately the destination and source MAC addresses (and source-routing
information, if pr
Actually, 802.1q adds four bytes, ISL encapsulation makes the frame much
larger (by 30 bytes) I so the increase from 1518 to 1522 would make
sense for dot1q and an increase from 1518 to 1548 would be needed for ISL
(if it's even supported on the 802.11 stuff, but I can't speak on that).
>- Original Message -
>From: "Marko Milivojevic"
>To:
>Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 4:24 PM
>Subject: RE: Trunking over Aironet bridge? [7:42833]
>
>
>> > yes, you must change the default frame size on the ethernet
>> > side of both
&
Marko Milivojevic wrote:
> > yes, you must change the default frame size on the ethernet
> > side of both
> > bridges to 1522 (default 1518). As far as the radio is
> That would be required for ISL, but 802.1q should go with no
> changes?
Nope, that's for 802.1Q. ISL has a 27-byte heade
> yes, you must change the default frame size on the ethernet
> side of both
> bridges to 1522 (default 1518). As far as the radio is
> concern it will pass
> the frames out over the wireless. You will need a switch on
> the other end of
> the bridge to recieve the frames and break out the vlan
.
- Original Message -
From: "Steven A. Ridder"
To:
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: Trunking over Aironet bridge? [7:42833]
> yes
> ""Michael Bray"" wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > An
yes
""Michael Bray"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Anyone know if you can pass 802.1q over Aironet bridges?
>
> -mdb
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=42836&t=42833
---
Try putting one subnet on each subinterface - each in turn will map to a
vlan. Trunk all the vlans to the switch. On the interfaces where you want
multiple vlans try configuring "switchport multi vlan {ADD vlan-list |
REMOVE vlan-list} Valid IDs are from 1 to 1001. Separate nonconsecutive VLAN
IDs
Hi,
You're going to need to use 802.1Q. This is from
memory so may not be exactly correct. Don't have
access to a 450 at moment.
On the 450, you configure the port to be a tagged
port. You can do this through the console/telnet
interface or through Device Manager (free download
from Nortel). Th
Hamid,
how far are you with the VLAN configuration on your BayStack 450 ? Use the
4VLAN Configuration Menu4 and the 4VLAN Port Configuration Menu4 to create
VLANs and to add ports. Use the 4Multilink Trunk Configuration Menu4 to
create trunks. The BayStack supports 802.1q trunking only, so you
(In an Elvis voice)... Thank you.. Thank you very much!
=)
Mike W.
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=24980&t=24887
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Rep
Mike,
Funny that this topic came up tonight. I am taking the BCMSN test in the
morning and was just reading about trunking multiple VLANs to one router
interface. Excellent answer.
Brad
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=24916&t=24887
-
Check out this URL (careful of wrap)
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/473/55.html
Mike W.
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=24901&t=24887
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/
could complete MLS feature, the lowest hardware configuration and IOS
requirement.
thank you.
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=24897&t=24887
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.co
You are correct. The traffic will flow from the client on VLAN A, across
the trunk to the router, get routed, come back across the trunk to the
switch then to the client in VLAN B. I know I'll probably get hammered for
saying this because it's not *required* to work, but for the most part, you
w
Ya know. that really sux that Cisco would abandon ISL. Not because it's
"the best" but alot of people have built networks that utilize ISL because
it is better than Dot1Q, and not giving those people a graceful way to
change is really low down.
That's what happens when you trust prop
ies
> one instance of STP on a trunk, you will need to configure (or just be
> aware) of PVST+'s existence.
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Daniel Cotts"
> To:
> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 1:30 PM
> Subject: RE: trunking [7:6123]
>
>
>
I actually did this a few months back and it worked fine... although you
will get speed and duplex errors on the 6500 even if they're manually set
(at least with the Cabletron 9000 series switch). It didn't have any ill
results so no big deal.
Jeff
""SH Wesson"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTE
If the cabletron thing is compliant with the IEEE spec, which only specifies
one instance of STP on a trunk, you will need to configure (or just be
aware) of PVST+'s existence.
- Original Message -
From: "Daniel Cotts"
To:
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 1:30 PM
Subject:
Cabletron doesnt support ISL so you would have to do
dot1q
--- Daniel Cotts wrote:
> ISL is Cisco proprietary. 802.1Q is an open standard
> so that would be the
> way to connect the boxes. Check out "Cisco LAN
> Switching" by Clark and
> Hamilton.
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: SH We
ISL is Cisco proprietary. 802.1Q is an open standard so that would be the
way to connect the boxes. Check out "Cisco LAN Switching" by Clark and
Hamilton.
> -Original Message-
> From: SH Wesson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 12:03 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subj
Can you see the MAC addresses on each switch? can you see ARP entries on
any attached devices?
What VLAN permissioning do you have on the trunks?
can you post configs?
Andy
- Original Message -
From: "Plantier, William (Spencer)"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 4:52 PM
Subject:
I would look at the spannig tree state when the 2nd Linux server comes up.
I am not a Linux expert, but it sounds like it may be running spanning tree
instance that is causing the 3512's gig port to go into blocking mode. Does
the Linux server have more than one NIC? Just a thought.
___
If you want a port to be a trunk then set it to ON, if not then set it to
OFF.
There is a procedure to negociate the mode - hence the auto/desirable
options, but why not hard code it down? Just one less thing to go wrong...
Andy
- Original Message -
From: "Lopez, Robert"
To:
Sent: Tu
Table 12-1: Fast Ethernet and Gigabit Ethernet Trunking Modes Mode Function
on
Puts the port into permanent trunking mode and negotiates to convert the
link into a trunk link. The port becomes a trunk port even if the
neighboring port does not agree to the change.
off
Puts the port into permanent
lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 3:28 AM
Subject: Re: trunking
>
> 802.1q doesn't support multiple spanning trees, but
> many vendors have added their own support which may or
> may not interoperate well with other vendors. YMMV.
>
&g
802.1q doesn't support multiple spanning trees, but
many vendors have added their own support which may or
may not interoperate well with other vendors. YMMV.
802.1s will which is at draft 9 (march 9 2001). To my
knowledge, I don't know of any vendors with support
for it at this time in it's dr
This may seem like nit-picking, but it isn't actually a revision of
802.1Q that supports
PVST, but rather, the vendor gear that supports PVST with the use of
802.1Q... Nortel
Passport (Accelar) switches support this as well...
-Brant
Rik wrote:
> Actually, most newer revisions of Dot1Q support
Actually, most newer revisions of Dot1Q support PVST as well.
Rik
""ciscosis"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
001301c0b3b7$aba8b000$593d839b@nes2s50667">news:001301c0b3b7$aba8b000$593d839b@nes2s50667...
> ISL has a number of advantages over dot1q, for example it supports per
vlan
> spanni
Hi All - My question relates to the trunking topic so I hope you would help.
If I have a Cisco 3620 with 1 fast ethernet port, can I implement "routing
on a stick" method with my 3Com CoreBuilder 5000 Switch? I assume I have to
use "do1q" enscapsulation. If possible, how should I do it? Thanks
All my 3548s do.
And the 4000s also do wehn you add teh L3 mod to it.
It's just that the lower end (no L3) don't...
--- "The.Rock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the catalyst 3548's don't either.
>
> ""Rik"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> 99ftpt$p2n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:99ftpt$p2
the catalyst 3548's don't either.
""Rik"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
99ftpt$p2n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:99ftpt$p2n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> ISL is Cisco proprietary whereas 802.1Q is an open standard. Cisco is
> moving away from ISL, however. In fact, some of the newer equipment no
> lo
ISL has a number of advantages over dot1q, for example it supports per vlan
spanning tree (PVST) which allows a separate spantree instance per Vlan
which makes networks more scalable and more stable than dot1q based.
It is Cisco proprietary but it interoperates with dot1q (common spanning
tree)
ISL Trunking is Cisco Proprieitary and is the perfered
method if used within a completely Cisco switched
fabric. 802.1q is the IEEE standard trunking
protocol.
The difference between the 2 is this ...
ISL actually encapsulates the frames traversing the
Trunk, which is to say it packages the VLA
I believe the main difference is that ISL supports per-VLAN Spanning Tree,
and 802.1q does not.
Jeff
Jeff Groman
IS Department, Childrens Hospital, Denver
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
303 864 5671
On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Lopez, Robert wrote:
>
> What are the differences between isl and 802.1q trunking.
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: trunking
As you know, 802.1q is a standard while ISL is proprietary. If you need
interoperability, go with 802.1q. Even if you're all Cisco, some of
Cisco's stuff doesn't support ISL. I say use whatever is available and
works for
As you know, 802.1q is a standard while ISL is proprietary. If you need
interoperability, go with 802.1q. Even if you're all Cisco, some of
Cisco's stuff doesn't support ISL. I say use whatever is available and
works for you, keeping in mind that reconfiguration in the future will
be necessary
ISL is Cisco proprietary whereas 802.1Q is an open standard. Cisco is
moving away from ISL, however. In fact, some of the newer equipment no
longer supports it, such as the Cat4000 switches.
Dot1Q adds less bits to the frame, but the way in which it adds them makes
it somewhat less efficient.
Do you have an uplink module on your Sup blade? Do a "show port
capabilities" to see what it can do. Else you are in the market for a 5225R
blade that does dot1Q, ISL, and EtherChannel.
> -Original Message-
> From: Marakalas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 9:02 A
The differences between auto and desirable is that desireable trys to become
a trunk, auto only is poked at with DTP frames requesting it act as a trunk.
With auto being the default for Fast/Gig Ethernet, you won't have trunks
coming up in places that you don't expect. The other end will have to
On a 2912XL switch, I believe the command is "switchport mode trunk". At
least that is the command on a 2924XL.
John
> Hi Group,
>
> Could someone tell me what IOS do I need in order to turn on trunking on
a
> cisco 2912XL switch. I'm currently running 12.0(5.1)XP but it doesn't
> unders
a packet over the size of 1500 would produce a giant ... not necessarily a
CRC.
Regards,
Jason Baker
Network Engineer
MCSE, CCNA
-Original Message-
From: Tony van Ree [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 8:19 AM
To: Rick Thompson; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re
Rick Thompson; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: trunking problem
Hi,
I'm not sure if this helps but running ISL on the trunk ports increases the
the packet size beyond 1500 bytes. This can produce a CRC error. Whilst
the error exists however the data still goes through ok.
You can check this b
Hi,
I'm not sure if this helps but running ISL on the trunk ports increases the the packet
size beyond 1500 bytes. This can produce a CRC error. Whilst the error exists
however the data still goes through ok.
You can check this by doing an extended ping and lifting the packet size to beyond
Turn the "keepalives" off on the router interface.
Look at Bug ID: CSCdm31600
Have a great Christmas!
God Bless!
Chuck Collins
CCNP
I am currently having the same problem right now with a 3640 trunking to a FE card in
a 2912MF
I am currently having the same problem right now with a 3640 trunking to a FE card in
a 2912MF. If you change to dotq do you see runt packets? The router interface does
not collect errors of any kind. TAC just sent me a new 2912. I will let you know if
I find anything.
Chuck Collins
CCNP
Your post isn't very clear as to exactly where you are seeing CRC errors -
is it just on the switch ports? Or is it on the router as well?
I've been having a similar problem with a Catalyst 1900. Its got a port
that reported a LOT of CRC and aligmnent errors. Absolutely abysmal file
transfer r
Interesting. Have you tried to make the connects
regular ports (not trunks) and disable all autoneg
(trunk, port channel, duplex, speed, etc). I realize
that you may not be able to do a non-trunk test easily
but if you can that would narrow the problem down
further to a trunking issue or not. I ra
That was the first thing i checked into, it does ISL
by default. I tried putting it in there and got the
same result.
--- Olden Pieterse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I dont see you specify ISL encapsulation on the 35XX
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Rick Thompson [SMTP:[EMAIL P
I dont see you specify ISL encapsulation on the 35XX
> -Original Message-
> From: Rick Thompson [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 7:49 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: trunking problem
>
> Let's see if anyone can figure this one out:
>
> Running int
Stuart,
There is a possibility that all links to a router can be a trunk but why do
you want to do that?. You would only need a trunk link to a switch if you
have multiple vlans and are using the router to route traffic between them.
A link would not be a trunk if is an access port in which the po
66 matches
Mail list logo
