Reading someones VLAN design, is always hard for me. Even with a very nice drawing , it helps, but still I didn't grasp it. It is probably me.
I give what I understand of VLAN and bridges, but in this matter, making a mistake is easy done.
Can you explain the purpose of using 3 bridges, and not just one?
Splitting VLAN in one bridge works fine.
The only double I see in multiple versus one, is the untagged traffic, that was separated per bridge, now would be common in the one bridge.
That looks easy to resolve, give it a separate VLAN number in the one bridge, and untag it where needed.
Ethernet interfaces normally are ports on the bridge, the VLANs used there are set in the bridge VLAN definitions, as tagged or untagged to some ports (ethernet interfaces)
Then no VLANs should be defined on the ethernet interfaces itself, only on the bridge.
It does exist ... VLAN on an ethernet interface, but then that VLAN is a different VLAN than the VLAN on the bridge or other interface even with the same number.
Interface VLAN 10,11,20,21 should be picked up at the bridge as interface, not at the SFP-TRUNK as interfaces, if these SFP-TRUNK interfaces are ports on the bridge.
Just like VLAN 19 and 29 are VLAN of the bridge.
But the VLAN interfaces themselves should not be added again to the bridge as ports, if the supporting interface already is a port.
The VLAN filtering of the bridge should give the access to those VLAN.
SFP Being ports of a bridge makes them "slave" interfaces, and the VLAN and DHCP and other IP functions of slave interfaces are handled only by the bridge, not by the interface.
If VLAN 19 and 29 are defined on a non-port-connected ethernet interface, then AFAIK the VLAN interfaces themselves can be added to a bridge on their own, typical as already untagged ports.
Confusing all this. I know, and I try to be carefull in what I say here.
I give what I understand of VLAN and bridges, but in this matter, making a mistake is easy done.
Can you explain the purpose of using 3 bridges, and not just one?
Splitting VLAN in one bridge works fine.
The only double I see in multiple versus one, is the untagged traffic, that was separated per bridge, now would be common in the one bridge.
That looks easy to resolve, give it a separate VLAN number in the one bridge, and untag it where needed.
Ethernet interfaces normally are ports on the bridge, the VLANs used there are set in the bridge VLAN definitions, as tagged or untagged to some ports (ethernet interfaces)
Then no VLANs should be defined on the ethernet interfaces itself, only on the bridge.
It does exist ... VLAN on an ethernet interface, but then that VLAN is a different VLAN than the VLAN on the bridge or other interface even with the same number.
Interface VLAN 10,11,20,21 should be picked up at the bridge as interface, not at the SFP-TRUNK as interfaces, if these SFP-TRUNK interfaces are ports on the bridge.
Just like VLAN 19 and 29 are VLAN of the bridge.
But the VLAN interfaces themselves should not be added again to the bridge as ports, if the supporting interface already is a port.
The VLAN filtering of the bridge should give the access to those VLAN.
SFP Being ports of a bridge makes them "slave" interfaces, and the VLAN and DHCP and other IP functions of slave interfaces are handled only by the bridge, not by the interface.
If VLAN 19 and 29 are defined on a non-port-connected ethernet interface, then AFAIK the VLAN interfaces themselves can be added to a bridge on their own, typical as already untagged ports.
Confusing all this. I know, and I try to be carefull in what I say here.
Statistics: Posted by bpwl — Fri Jan 19, 2024 9:47 pm