Private VLAN and ASA subinterfaces

Gents,
I have a dmz 3750 switch and i want to introduce private VLAN on this switch. This switch is connected to cisco ASA with trunk (subinterface for each primary VLAN) because we have multiple dmz. How the configuration on both sides will be ?.
If private VLANs can't be used with ASA subinterfaces, what solution can be done in this scanario ?
Thanks,

I would think the ASA doesn't care. The Pvlans are configured on the switch. The port that the ASA is connected too will be promiscuous.
To see how to configure it, check out this guide (a long in depth read but worth it):
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst4500/12.2/31sga/configuration/guide/pvlans.html
Regards,
Ian
If I hepled please rate me.

Similar Messages

Private vlan and HSRP

Hi, guys. I have a question about Private Vlan and HSRP implement. In my network topology, there are 2 switch 6509 as core switches and Internet outlet. There are a 3750 as a distribute swtich, and 3550 as a access swtich. the topology is as below:
| |
7609----7609
| |
3750
|
3550
|
servers
Now there are some Server will connect to 3550, and 3750 and 3550 will be treated as Layer 2 switch, that is these servers's default gateway will be on vlan interface on 7609, and I have configured HSRP between the vlan on 2 6509. My question is how to implement private vlan on 3550 with HSRP on 7609, so that these servers can have redundancy gateway, and be kept isolated between other servers.

It looks like the 3550 do not support private VLAN.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps4324/products_tech_note09186a0080094830.shtml
More info. on private VLAN :
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps4324/products_configuration_guide_chapter09186a00802c30c4.html#wp1138148
Did you configure the VLAN trunking between 7609, 3750 and 3550 ? Once we enable the VLAN trunking then the server can plug to the assigned VLAN and communicate to the 7609 via the trunk w/o interference w/ other VLAN. However, you have to enable the VLAN routing at 7609 to make it able to connect to other VLAN user if you want.
Hope this helps.

Private Vlan and Switchport Protected

Dear All,
My core switch is 4500 which support Private Vlan. However, I have several closet switch (2950) which only support Switchport Protected. 4500 and each 2950 are connected with trunk using fiber.
How can I config PC at 2950_Switch1 cannot communicate to PC at 2950_Switch2 (all fastethernet port on both 2950 are at the same vlan and same subnet)?
Thanks.
C.K.

Hi C.k.,
I believe you can use switchport protected feature along with port blocking feature to accomplish this. First have your switch ports configured as protected ports on which you dont want the traffic to flow and then configure those ports to deny unknown unicast and multicast using the " port-blocking feature ".
Try that and let us know.
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/cat2950/12120ea2/2950scg/swtrafc.htm#wp1174968
HTH,
-amit singh

Private vlans and 2960 and 3560 switch

Hi, I have a 3560 switch that supports private vlans. There are few computers connected to it and private vlans work fine. Now I need to connect a 2960 switch to 3560 switch. 2960 seems to have no private vlan configuration options but it can be private vlan edge? What is private vlan edge? If I put the computers on 2960 to a vlan that is isolated vlan in 3560 will the computers be able to communicate with themselves in layer2 on 2960 switch?

Example: I have network 10.0.0.0/24. Networks primary vlan is 2001, isolated is 2002 and community is 2003. These settings are on 3560. So if I put computers on 2960 switch to vlan 2002 and make the ports protected ports they will act as isolated ports and they can't communicate with ports that are on isolated vlan 2002 on 3560???
Can I also use the community vlan on 2960? is this possible because vlans 2002 and 2003 would be on the same network???

Private Vlans and trunk mode

if we have a primary vlan 100 associate with it
vlan 11 over {fa0/2 work as host mode} , vlan 12 over {fa0/3 work as host mode} they work as secondry community vlan
and vlan 13 as isolated secondry vlan over {fa0/4 host mode}
How we can route between private vlans 11,12,13 and {vlan 50 fa0/5 access mode}
cloud we use the fa 0/1 which connected to L3 device as promiscouous mode and trunk mode at the same time or what ... ??
and

Private vlan's are all on the same subnet, so from what you are writing I see:
100-------------------------------
| | |
| | |
11 12 13
Fa0/2 fa/03 fa0/4
and you want to route to Vlan 50, correct?
In that case you need to trunk vlan 100 to a vlan interface and make sure that vlan 50 also has a routed interface on the same device.

Private-VLAN and EtherChannel

Hi,
On a Catalyst 3750, I have created a Primary and Secondary Community VLANs and have associated them.
The Primary VLAN (100) is attached to a promiscuous port, the Secondary VLANs (101-103) aren't attached to any port.
I would like to let the Secondary VLANs traffic pass over an EtherChannel link that is a dot1q trunk.
The trunk is made with a virtual switch (VMware ESX) and transports non-Private VLANs (101-103). The trunk itself works.
How can I configure the EtherChannel as a private-VLAN port, considering that the EtherChannel isn't using PAgP/LACP modes? ("group-channel 1 mode on").
Is there a way to solve this without replacing the Private-VLANs with VLANs?
Thanks in advance for your help!

From "EtherChannel Configuration Guidelines"
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/cat3750/12225sed/scg/swethchl.htm#wp1021856
Do not configure a private-VLAN port as part of an EtherChannel.

Heads Up: Private VLAN Sticky-ARP DHCP Issues

Here is the scenario:
Private VLANs are configured on a 6500 Sup720 with SVIs routing for the PVLANs.
DHCP Snooping and IP ARP Inspection are also configured for the PVLAN subnets.
A DHCP Server is offering 3 day leases.
A laptop connects to the network and receives a 3-day lease. The user leaves the office and returns 4 days later. The DHCP server offers a new lease with a different IP address. Furthermore, the previous IP address leased to the laptop has been handed out in a new lease to another host. Both systems receive their DHCP lease but have no network connectivity.
The problem occurs because, by default, PVLAN SVIs use Sticky-ARP and never age out their ARP cache. Since the laptop has a different IP address to MAC address mapping than recorded in the Sticky-ARP cache, a violation occurs and the switch prevents the new IP address from populating the ARP table on the switch.
Sticky-ARP is a security feature that prevents one system from stealing another systems IP address.
Log messages show the following:
%IP-3-STCKYARPOVR: Attempt to overwrite Sticky ARP entry
The 6500 PVLAN configuration guide Restrictions and Guidlines section suggests that Sticky-ARP is fundamental to Private-VLANs, and the only work-around for this problem is to create manual arp entries for the new IP address. This is clearly not a viable workaround for this scenario.
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/cat6000/122sx/swcg/pvlans.htm#wp1090979
However, the 6500 Command Reference shows that Sticky ARP can be disabled, but makes no reference to PVLANs
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/cat6000/122sx/cmdref/i1.htm#wp1091738
There appears to be two sensible solutions to this problem:
1) Disable Stick-ARP on the 6500 for the PVLANs. Since DHCP Snooping and IP ARP Inspection are configured, sticky-arp can be disabled without relaxing network security. This is assuming the 6500 will accept the command and will not break the existing PVLAN functionality.
2) Extend the DHCP lease longer, to 45 or 90 days perhaps. This will catch most transient activity and keep the IP address to MAC address relationships the same, wherever possible. The downside here is that DHCP address pools could collect stale entires that would take the lease time to flush, thus reducing the overall available IPs in the pool.
Has anyone else run into this problem? If so, what was your solution? Did you attempt either option above? I am planning on using solution #1 above, but I wanted to ping the NetPro community with this as I am sure we are not the first customer to run into this. Or are we??
Regards,
Brad

Excellent question.
Sticky-ARP is NOT intended to be a pain-in-the-butt that should disabled right away, rather, it is a security mechanism that prevents a system from stealing an active IP address on the subnet and causing a lot of problems. Sticky-ARP works best on subnets that have all static IP addressing where there is no expectation that a host would frequently change its IP address.
Yes, I would recommend keeping Sticky-ARP on subnets with all static IP addresses.
In DHCP subnets with no static IP addressing, DHCP Snooping and IP ARP Inspection provide the same security coverage that Sticky-ARP does, they prevent a system from claiming an illegitimate IP and MAC address. Furthermore, in DHCP subnets, it is reasonable to expect that a host would change its IP address from time to time when its lease expires.
Sticky-ARP does not provide any addtional securtity benefits when DHCP Snooping and IP ARP Inspection are active and it only causes problems when a lease expires.
When Cisco made Stick-ARP the default behavior for Private VLANs, they certain did not have DHCP in mind.
In Summary, it should be known as a Best Practice that when using Private VLANs on user segments with DHCP that DHCP Snooping and IP ARP Inspection should be enabled and Sticky-ARP be disabled.
Brad

Configure Private VLAN on 3750 & 2960

Hi All,
( R ) ------ [ 3750 ] ------- [ 2960 A ]
|------------ [ 2960 B ]
I had these VLAN on the 3750 & 2960:
- Vlan 8 (mgnt Vlan), Vlan 17, Vlan 34, Vlan 35
Basically I had already configure switchport protected on all the port on the 2960 except the uplink to 3750.
2960 Configure
On uplink to 3750
switchport mode trunk
On end device port
switchport trunk native vlan 35
switchport trunk allowed vlan 34,35
switchport mode trunk
switchport protected
spanning-tree portfast
How do I go about configure private VLAN on the 3750?
3750 Configure
On downlink to 2960
switchport mode trunk
Interface vlan8
ip address 10.8.0.1 255.255.255.0
Interface vlan17
ip address 10.17.0.1 255.255.255.0
Interface vlan34
ip address 10.34.0.1 255.255.255.0
Interface vlan35
ip address 10.35.0.1 255.255.255.0
What I want to achieve is to send all the VLAN 8, 17, 34, 35 from 2960 to 3750 and 3750 to 2960. But at the same time prevent 2960 A client from talking to 2960 B client on VLAN 35?

I believe that if both devices you want no to speak with each other are on 2960 the "switchport protected" should work.
But you can configure with private vlan.
let's say client A is in port f0/1 and client B in port f0/2
Parent (main) VLAN is 100 and child is 999
You would configure the VLANs in ALL switches.
vlan 999
private-vlan isolated
vlan 100
private-vlan primary
private-vlan association 999
Now you would need to configure the ports.
int range f0/1 - 2
switchport mode private-vlan host
switchport private-vlan host-association 100 999
If the interfaces will talk to other VLANs, you need to configure the SVI to understand it will serve the private VLANs.
interface vlan 100
private-vlan mapping 999
That's it, but notice that now interface f0/1 will not talk to f0/2 and to any other interface inside vlan 100, if you want a port to communicate to f0/1 or f0/2 this new port would need to be configured as a promiscuous one (In case it needs to talk to both of them) or create a community private-vlan and configure the ports desired on it. (F0/1 and F0/2 can't be on the same community VLAN or they'll be able to talk to each other).
If the intention is to prevent one specific port from talking to all the others, you can put only this interface in the private VLAN instead of both.
wrote too much, if this answers your question let me know, or we can create a practical scenario for it.

Private vlan edge port & STP

Hi:
Is it possible (and a good design to avoid layer 2 loops) to combine the stp and protected ports features on uplinks ports of an edge "non-transit switch"?
The uplinks ports that i would like to have also as protected ports will be dot1q trunks, anyway i have read that protected ports are also supported with dot1q on 3750 switches... my doubt is, if you already have STP working on these uplink ports, may the protected-port feature help to avoid the undesirable efects of a loop or it is not designed for this purpouse?
Regards and TIA.
Juan

The PVLAN edge (protected port) is a feature that has only local significance to the switch (unlike Private Vlans), and there is no isolation provided between two protected ports located on different switches. A protected port does not forward any traffic (unicast, multicast, or broadcast) to any other port that is also a protected port in the same switch. Traffic cannot be forwarded between protected ports at L2, all traffic passing between protected ports must be forwarded through a Layer 3 (L3) device

Private Vlan testing

Setting up Private/Vlans and need a relativley simple and quick method to test this installation. I am concerned with the added security this technology is providing. I want to test to make sure the traffic is indeed secured.

DMZ servers are only supposed to process incoming requests from the Internet, and eventually initiate connections to some back-end servers located at an inside or other DMZ segment, such as a database server. At the same time, DMZ servers are not supposed to talk to each other or initiate any connections to the outside world. This clearly defines the necessary traffic flows in a simple trust model.

Double Private VLAN

I want to ask if my Vswitch on the VM ware has using 1st time Private VLAN and at the N5K can I use apply second time Private VLAN?
VM Servers <--- Trunk---> N5K
First VM has primary vlan say 100
First VM secondary vlan say 101,102,103
Second VM has primary vlan say 200
Second VM secondary vlan say 201,202,203
So will N5K able to has following PVLAN config
Primary VLAN 300
Secondary VLAN say 100,200

Vlad,
From networks connected behind router1 need to reach networks connected behind router2
------[router1]--------------gig1/4[vdmz]gig2/16----------------[router2]-------
gig1/4 is community vlan 121
gig2/16 is in community vlan 119
Primary vlan is Vlan116
VDMZ is our 6503 configured with private vlans.
some more of the config is this (and I do have a 6503 with an mscf daughter card):
interface Vlan116
description vendor-dmz public/private primary vlan
ip address 10.248.15.2 255.255.255.128 secondary
ip address 211.121.108.66 255.255.255.192
ip access-group 140 in (this one has a permit any any at the end)
no ip redirects
no ip unreachables
private-vlan mapping 117-122
ip route 10.82.35.0 255.255.255.0 211.121.108.96
(where 211.121.108.96 is address of router1)
I have a bgp peering with 211.121.108.90 which is router2.
in router1 they can see the routes advertised via bgp and also in router2 they
can see the route for 10.82.35.0 that I advertise to them via bgp.
I really appreciate your help,
Alban

Hi all, need advice on OSPF and private vlans

Hi all.
I have a project to complete and need some help on the possible solution I can use.
Basically we have ospf area 0 and the users in question are in ospf area 7 and is a stub.
I need to route the traffic from these users out through area 0 through 3 core devices, onto an external firewall interface to be placed onto the vpn that sits on it. The firewall is not included in the ospf domain.
My thinking was that the firewall has a default route back into the ospf domain so dont need to worry about traffic coming in, however my job is to segregate these users and take them out of our core network and place them onto an external network via this vpn.
Not sure how to achieve this apart from static routing redistributed but surely this does not seperate their traffic only points the route to ospf?!
I was thinking I might have to use private vlans or policy routing but when I try policy routing the policy gets ignored due to normal forwarding.
Any help and advice would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers
Steve

Steve
Thanks, that helps.
GRE is defintely out because apart from the 6500 GRE tunneling is not supported on the Cisco switches.
It's good that area 7 is only for these users and not mixed up with other users.
So if i understand correcty the 4500 interface connecting to the 6500 is in area 0 and the interface connecting to the 3550 is in area.
Or is the 3550 connected to both areas and the 4500 totally in area 0 ?
Can you confirm the above ?
In terms of keeping them separate there are 2 possible choices. You can either -
1) use VRF-LIte, although i'm not sure whether the HP switch would support this. With VRF-Lite you are in effect creating virtual devices on the same physical device. This means each virtual device has it's own routing and forwarding table so it is quite secure because you would only populate the routing table with the routes needed so there would be no way for users to jump to thes rest of your networks.
The downside is that is can become quite complex to configure. If the 4500 is only used to connect are 7 to area 0 then that would not be a problem but the connection from the 6500 to the HP could and i don't even know whether the HP supports VRF-Lite functionality let alone how to configure it on that switch.
But it would, at least from the 4500 to 6500 to HP provide complete separation in terms of routing and forwarding. Once it got to the HP it wouldn't but that might not be an issue.
2) Use PBR (possibly together with acls). This is easier to configure ie. you configure PBR on the 4500 and the 6500 to get the traffic to the HP switch. But you do not get the actual separation you get with VRF-Lite ie. the traffic simply overrides the existing routing tables.
The other thing to bear in mind with PBR is that you also have to configure the return traffic as well so each device would need multiple PBR configs.
Again i don't know whether the HP supports PBR but it may not be an issue depending on what the routing is on the HP.
You could also use a combination of the above ie VRF-Lite between the Cisco switches and then PBR for the last hop to the HP device.
I should say i don't have a huge amount of experience with VRF-Lite but that should not necessarily stop you using it if it is what you need. There are lots of other people on here so i'm sure there will be other people who can help if i can't.
It still depends on how much separation is required. VRF-Lite is definitely seen as a way to separate traffic running across a shared infrastructure, PBR is not really seen in the same way. So it may well be worth going back to find out exactly what "segregating" user traffic means.
I don't want to confuse the issue but it's still not entirely clear what the actual requirement is.
Jon

Private Vlan, Etherchannel and Isolated Trunk on Nexus 5010

I'm not sure if I'm missing something basic here however i though that I'd ask the question. I recieved a request from a client who is trying to seperate traffic out of a IBM P780 - one set of VIO servers/clients (Prod) is tagged with vlan x going out LAG 1 and another set of VIO server/clients (Test) is tagged with vlan y and z going out LAG 2. The problem is that the management subnet for these devices is on one subnet.
The infrastructure is the host device is trunked via LACP etherchannel to Nexus 2148TP(5010) which than connects to the distribution layer being a Catalyst 6504 VSS. I have tried many things today, however I feel that the correct solution to get this working is to use an Isolated trunk (as the host device does not have private vlan functionality) even though there is no requirement for hosts to be segregated. I have configured:
1. Private vlan mapping on the SVI;
2. Primary vlan and association, and isolated vlan on Distribution (6504 VSS) and Access Layer (5010/2148)
3. All Vlans are trunked between switches
4. Private vlan isolated trunk and host mappings on the port-channel interface to the host (P780).
I haven't had any luck. What I am seeing is as soon as I configure the Primary vlan on the Nexus 5010 (v5.2) (vlan y | private-vlan primary), this vlan (y) does not forward on any trunk on the Nexus 5010 switch, even without any other private vlan configuration. I believe this may be the cause to most of the issues I am having. Has any one else experienced this behaviour. Also, I haven't had a lot of experience with Private Vlans so I might be missing some fundamentals with this configuration. Any help would be appreciated.

Hello Emcmanamy, Bruce,
Thanks for your feedback.
Just like you, I have been facing the same problematic last months with my customer.
Regarding PVLAN on FEX, and as concluded in Bruce’s previous posts I understand :
You can configure a host interface as an isolated or community access port only.
We can configure “isolated trunk port” as well on a host interface. Maybe this specific point could be updated in the documentation.
This ability is documented here =>
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/datacenter/nexus5000/sw/layer2/513_N2_1/b_Cisco_n5k_layer2_config_gd_rel_513_N2_1_chapter_0101.html#task_1170903
You cannot configure a host interface as a promiscuous port.
You cannot configure a host interface as a private VLAN trunk port.
Indeed a pvlan is not allowed on a trunk defined on a FEX host interface.
However since NxOS 5.1(3)N2(1), the feature 'PVLAN on FEX trunk' is supported. But a command has to be activated before => system private-vlan fex trunk . When entered a warning about the presence of ‘FEX isolated trunks’ is prompted.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/datacenter/nexus5000/sw/layer2/513_N2_1/b_Cisco_n5k_layer2_config_gd_rel_513_N2_1_chapter_0101.html#task_16C0869F1B0C4A68AFC3452721909705
All these conditions are not met on a N5K interface.
Best regards.
Karim

Private-VLAN using Nexus 7010 and 2248TP FEX

I have a Nexus 7010 with several 2248TP FEX modules.
I am trying to configure a Private VLAN on one of the FEX host ports.
I see in the documentation you can't do promiscous but I can't even get the host only configuration to take.
Software
BIOS:      version 3.22.0
kickstart: version 6.0(2)
system:    version 6.0(2)
sho run | inc private
feature private-vlan
vlan 11
name PVLAN_Primary
private-vlan primary
private-vlan association 12
vlan 12
name PVLAN_Secondary
private-vlan isolated
7010(config)# int e101/1/48
7010(config-if)#
7010(config-if)# switchport mode ?
access        Port mode access
dot1q-tunnel Port mode dot1q tunnel
fex-fabric    Port mode FEX fabric
trunk         Port mode trunk
Switchport mode private-vlan doesn't even show up!!!!!!
If I try this command it says its not allowed on the FEX port.
7010(config-if)# switchport private-vlan host-association 11 12
ERROR: Requested config not allowed on fex port
What am I doing wrong?????
Todd

Have you found a solution to this?
-Jeremy

Multi-VRF CE with Private VLANs

Does anyone know if you can implement a VRF instance on a private vlan? I would assume so, and will lab it out as time permits, but was curious if anyone had tried it/knows one way or the other.

Since both the platforms support VRF lite and MPLS VPN, you can use Frame-Relay as the encapsulation for sub interfaces with local DLCI switching.
As the VRF configuration is not media dependent.
HTH-Cheers,
Swaroop
Router 1
interface Serial0/0
no ip address
encapsulation frame-relay
no keepalive
!--- This command disables LMI processing.
interface Serial0/0.1 point-to-point
!--- A point-to-point subinterface has been created.
ip address 172.16.120.105 255.255.255.0
ip vrf forwarding xxx
frame-relay interface-dlci 101
!--- DLCI 101 has been assigned to this interface
Router 2
interface Serial0/0
no ip address
encapsulation frame-relay
no keepalive
!--- This command disables LMI processing.
interface Serial0/0.1 point-to-point
!--- A point-to-point subinterface has been created.
ip vrf forwarding xxx
ip address 172.16.120.120 255.255.255.0
frame-relay interface-dlci 101
!--- DLCI 101 has been assigned to this interface

Private VLAN and ASA subinterfaces

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for