On 5/17/06, Ispánovits Imre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2006 15:32:41 -0500
"Bill Marquette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/17/06, Ispánovits Imre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > True, seconded :) Using dedicated (untagged) vlans for each port in a
> > > trunk configuration is a good idea too if your switch supports this.
> > >
> >
> > Trunked vlans? How this looks like?
>
> Again, I think my terminology is getting the better of me.
>
> Lets say port 5 is in vlan 5, but you want it to be a trunk port, not
> an access port, you still keep it in vlan 5, but you put vlans 6-10 in
> your trunk statement. The native vlan for the port is 5, the tagged
> vlans are 6-10. I can't speak to any switches other than Cisco and
> even then it's not my job to configure them, I know enough to make it
> work on the firewall side.
>
I don't know how is it with Cisco, but with this D-Link switch "considers a
trunk as a single port entity, regardless of the trunk composition. Each
enabled trunk is comprised of four contigous ports." (Sorry it is from the
manual).
Is it the same as what you talked about?
Nope. In cisco terminology that sounds like a portchannel...heh :)
--Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
