Bookmark this page:
Yahoo!
Windows Live
del.icio.us
digg
Netscape
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by amattina@layer8group.com on September 9, 2006, 12:06 pm
Please log in for more thread options Great. Thanks for the patient explaination. I am going to try this out. Maint. window is a night next week so I will let you know how it goes. Thanks guys. - Adam Walter Roberson wrote: >
> >-----------------Port3, PVID3, VLAN3, Server Machine II
> > Port 3 ------ Port17, PVID17, > >VLAN17, Server Machine >
> >
> >Need to have PVID 3 needs to talk to PVID3 on both switches. >
> And PVID 17 as well. > > >So what
> >I THINKI need to do is the following: >
> >Include Port 3 on both VLANS on both switches. Make this port tagged on
> >both switches in both VLANS. Will that get the two VLANS talking to > >each other accross the switches? >
> That's not right: port 3 on the 7324 should be an untagged port > that is only in PVID3. The port that needs to be a member of both > PVID 3 and PVID 17 is the port which is the link from the 7324 to the 724, > and on the 724 the port that would need to be in both would be the > one that links to the 7324. [I can't tell from your earlier diagram > or this one which ports are being used for the links, so I can't > give exact port numbers.] > > >Once I can do this to just the two
> >vlans I have about 8 other vlans to 'transport' aaccross this 'trunk' > >link. >
> >Let me know what you think.
>
> On each switch, the port the links across to the other switch > should be a trunk which is a member of all the PVIDs that are to > be carried across the link. > > Usually only the trunk ports are tagged ports; the other ports > are access ports that are members only of the PVID appropriate > for the device connected to them. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by amattina@layer8group.com on September 13, 2006, 2:59 pm
Please log in for more thread options Everything went great. Thanks very much. Is this the same sort of setup/concept that a cisco or other brand switches would go through as far as port assignments? I guess the next step is getting this baby up on my mrtg. I have a bunch of other devices already running on nagios and mrtg. Have you done anything, or is there anything specific I need to watch for on this netgear? Thanks, Adam amattina@layer8group.com wrote: > Great. Thanks for the patient explaination. I am going to try this
> out. Maint. window is a night next week so I will let you know how it > goes. > > Thanks guys. > > - Adam > Walter Roberson wrote: > > >Again, two ports on the
> > >7324 in different VLANs, and four ports on the 726 with two in > > >different vlans. > >
> > >-----------------Port3, PVID3, VLAN3, Server Machine II
> > > Port 3 ------ Port17, PVID17, > > >VLAN17, Server Machine > >
> > >
> > >Need to have PVID 3 needs to talk to PVID3 on both switches. > >
> > And PVID 17 as well. > > > > >So what
> > >I THINKI need to do is the following: > >
> > >Include Port 3 on both VLANS on both switches. Make this port tagged on
> > >both switches in both VLANS. Will that get the two VLANS talking to > > >each other accross the switches? > >
> > That's not right: port 3 on the 7324 should be an untagged port > > that is only in PVID3. The port that needs to be a member of both > > PVID 3 and PVID 17 is the port which is the link from the 7324 to the 724, > > and on the 724 the port that would need to be in both would be the > > one that links to the 7324. [I can't tell from your earlier diagram > > or this one which ports are being used for the links, so I can't > > give exact port numbers.] > > > > >Once I can do this to just the two
> > >vlans I have about 8 other vlans to 'transport' aaccross this 'trunk' > > >link. > >
> > >Let me know what you think.
> >
> > On each switch, the port the links across to the other switch > > should be a trunk which is a member of all the PVIDs that are to > > be carried across the link. > > > > Usually only the trunk ports are tagged ports; the other ports > > are access ports that are members only of the PVID appropriate > > for the device connected to them. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by anoop on September 13, 2006, 5:39 pm
Please log in for more thread options
amattina@layer8group.com wrote: > Everything went great. Thanks very much. Is this the same sort of
> setup/concept that a cisco or other brand switches would go through as > far as port assignments? That's pretty much how it should work on any 802.1Q-compliant switch. Anoop | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Walter Roberson on September 13, 2006, 5:44 pm
Please log in for more thread options
>Everything went great. Thanks very much. Is this the same sort of
>setup/concept that a cisco or other brand switches would go through as >far as port assignments? Yes, but the command structures can vary enough to make it -look- like you are doing something completely different. That's particularily the case when you start mixing port-based VLANs (i.e., a set of ports are bridged together at layer 2) with routing VLANs (i.e., the bridged set of ports is assigned a virtual interface that then has an IP assigned to it and participates in routing.) What you can -do- with a port or a VLAN is much more advanced on some of the other devices such as a Cisco Catalyst 3750. Also, some devices (e.g. Nortel Baystack series) allow packets to be automatically directed into different VLANs depending on the packet type -- so for example you might have an IPX VLAN on a port that is distinct from the 802.3 VLAN. e.g., no point sending NETBIOS traffic to a segment with no NETBIOS- capable devices. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Walter Roberson on September 6, 2006, 5:17 pm
Please log in for more thread options
>Trust me, I know the frustration of working
>with half-ass quality equipment and poor documentation. This document >you linked to didn't exist when this problem started. The document has been around and accessible since the GSM7324 was released a few years ago. I remember long nights of tearing out my hair... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Similar Threads | Posted |
| Intra-switch VLANs Netgear | September 6, 2006, 1:46 pm |
| Netgear FS526T | January 25, 2005, 8:48 pm |
| NetGear WGU624 | March 16, 2006, 6:37 pm |
| Netgear WGT624 V2 Router | July 7, 2004, 2:28 pm |
| Voyager 205 and Netgear FS605 | May 6, 2005, 6:00 pm |
| Dead Netgear PE-102s | March 29, 2006, 6:09 pm |
| Netgear and Cisco Trunk | May 3, 2007, 4:04 am |
| Re: Netgear powerline extenders | May 12, 2008, 4:25 pm |
| Netgear GSM72224 VLAN config | November 8, 2004, 12:49 pm |
| Netgear router setup problem | January 7, 2006, 6:56 pm |
| Netgear router setup problem | January 7, 2006, 6:56 pm |
| Allied Telesyn vs Cisco vs netgear | March 24, 2006, 4:02 pm |
| Third Party SFPs in Netgear Switches | September 24, 2006, 2:27 pm |
| Bizarre interaction between macbook pro and Netgear WGT624v2 | January 10, 2007, 5:52 pm |
| wireless connection only stay up for 2 min./NetGEAR WGT624 | February 21, 2005, 8:04 pm |

Intra-switch VLANs Netgear
Yahoo!
Windows Live
del.icio.us
digg
Netscape 








> >7324 in different VLANs, and four ports on the 726 with two in
> >different vlans.