Re: status of VLAN support in Debian/Linux in general

On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 01:55:22PM +0200, Andreas John wrote: > Hi! - > problem with VLANs through a trunk AFAIR. BTW: Could anyone point out > what happens in practice when one cable/port in the trunk dies? Is > trunking redundant? hot failover?) - If you by trunking mean the bonding module, yes

Re: status of VLAN support in Debian/Linux in general

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004, Andreas John wrote: > Hi! > > 1.) AT8024 is good choice - but it comes without 1000BaseTX interface! > (netgear I don't know). yes, it does have ... this is the reason i wish to buy it than another 8024 ! > 2.) Reading you description I assume that you have at the time >

Re: status of VLAN support in Debian/Linux in general

Hi! 1.) AT8024 is good choice - but it comes without 1000BaseTX interface! (netgear I don't know). Keeo in mind that you may also "trunk" the two existring NIC in the servers to the switchs (yes, trunking is an IEEE protocol). You would have 200Mbit (== 400Mbit FDX) per server even without gigab

Re: addenda to question about status of VLAN support in Debian/Linux in general

In such case the best you can do is setup some kind of QoS on network gear and TOS labeling along your network in order to prioritize traffic and get rid as much as posible of hard flows. j Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote: On Sunday 12 September 2004 12.41, Leonardo Boselli wrote: [.

Re: addenda to question about status of VLAN support in Debian/Linux in general

On Sunday 12 September 2004 12.41, Leonardo Boselli wrote: [...] > using only one NIC per server is just a > "clean wiring" consideration.) I guess the most important (and obvious) consideration is that all VLANs on the same wire share the same bandwidth. With normal loads, this should be fine,

addenda to question about status of VLAN support in Debian/Linux in general

Il 12 Sep 2004 alle 12:31 Leonardo Boselli immise in rete > Just an information: > i will have a netgear 526T and a AT 8024 > my servers have one a NIC driven by e1000 module, the other by > 8139too . > Currently they have two nic each, one with 2 addresses and one with > other two, connected

Re: status of VLAN support in Debian/Linux in general

Il 11 Sep 2004 alle 21:30 Andreas John immise in rete > 1.) VLAN is an IEEE Standard. (802.1q). > But there are two kind of VLAN: tagged VLAN and untagged ones. > b.) The tagged one are 802.1q. This is what you are looking for. All Just an information: i will have a netgear 526T and a AT 8024 ..

Re: status of VLAN support in Debian/Linux in general

On Sun, 2004-09-12 at 08:47, Jonathan G - Mailing Lists wrote: > Comment in line > > Andreas John wrote: > > > 4.) Hint: If you setup VLAN with /etc/network/interfaces please keep in > > mind that the physical interface has to be up in order to create VLANs > > on it, i.e. you have to set somme

Re: status of VLAN support in Debian/Linux in general

Comment in line Andreas John wrote: 4.) Hint: If you setup VLAN with /etc/network/interfaces please keep in mind that the physical interface has to be up in order to create VLANs on it, i.e. you have to set somme (dummy?) IP to ethX in order to create ethX.VID. You'd better leave up but unconfi

Re: status of VLAN support in Debian/Linux in general

Replying to myself: 1.) tulip driver in 2.6 does work with VLAN (test was: ping -s 1472 vs. ping -s 1468) 2.) I wrote about a framesize of a tagged frame with 1504 byte I correct myself by quoting candelatech: --- 2 - 802.1q tagging adds an additional header field (4 Bytes) to the ethernet heade

Re: status of VLAN support in Debian/Linux in general

On Saturday 11 September 2004 21.30, Andreas John wrote: [a lot of stuff] Thanks a lot, that's exactly the kind of information I was looking for. -- vbi -- Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 35th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3170 pgpFGzWtgpGhD.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: status of VLAN support in Debian/Linux in general

Hello! 1.) VLAN is an IEEE Standard. (802.1q). But there are two kind of VLAN: tagged VLAN and untagged ones. a.) The untagged ones work only "within one switch", i.e. the switch is able to 'partition' itself into several logical switches. This is not what you want. b.) The tagged one are 802.1

Re: status of VLAN support in Debian/Linux in general

On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 03:44:50PM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote: > Hi, > > I've some questions regarding VLAN support in Debian and in Linux. First: is > still the main page? Google > makes me think so, but there are some refere

Re: status of VLAN support in Debian/Linux in general

in general, something works with most of the switches that "have vlans", but if you do not mix the different brands;) (no, in fact they aren't standartized in real life.) check before you buy, if it is possible. if not - buy one-vendor-only ...and check at least google to see if someone managed t

Re: status of VLAN support in Debian/Linux in general

On Wed, 2004-09-08 at 17:30, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:44:50 +0200, Adrian wrote in message > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Hi, > > > > I've some questions regarding VLAN support in Debian and in Linux. > > First: is still the > > mai

Re: status of VLAN support in Debian/Linux in general

On Wednesday 08 September 2004 17.30, Arnt Karlsen wrote: ... > ..play with oraclic > http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=Debian+wifi+802.11+laptop+wireless ... play with spelling. VLAN == 802.1q == virtual LAN != WLAN == wireless LAN thanks -- vbi -- Ist der Virus erst entdeckt, ist die Pl

Re: status of VLAN support in Debian/Linux in general

On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:44:50 +0200, Adrian wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi, > > I've some questions regarding VLAN support in Debian and in Linux. > First: is still the > main page? Google makes me think so, but there are some references t

status of VLAN support in Debian/Linux in general

Hi, I've some questions regarding VLAN support in Debian and in Linux. First: is still the main page? Google makes me think so, but there are some references to 2.2 kernels and none to 2.6 kernels, so I'm a bit unsure. 2.6 kernels: are they ready