Two switches, two trunks

Hi all,
I have a site which has two switches; a CE520 and a C2960.
There are two trunks between the two switches.
one trunk with a native vlan 100 at both ends (voice vlan)
the other trunk has native vlan 1 on the ce520 and 100 on the 2960; this is generating vlan mismatch errors
I wonder if whoever set it up envisaged having one trunk as native vlan 1 and the other as 100. Would there be a benefit to this? Is it entirely redundant having two trunks between just two switches?
thanks
justin

Hi
Just my Point of view.
Having different vlans is more of Vlan Hopping. Frankly, I did not see others using it.
Do you see any allowed list of vlans on the trunk? Can you please check what vlans are forwarding on the trunk.
By making a vlan as native,say if there is an untagged packet received it will be sent to that native vlan.
Entirely Redundant?
If clients are connected to this switch then no
If both the switches have uplinks to say DS and provided they are configured properly for say L3 redundancy say HSRP, then if one of your DS goes down they will be redundant.
Thanks

Similar Messages

VLANs across switches without trunking

Assuming that you only have one VLAN, is it possible to have that single VLAN reach across multiple switches without trunk ports? I've inherited a network of a handful of Cat 6506s, and Cat4006's, which have one big flat /22 in a single VLAN. I'd like to break it up into smaller chunks and seperate VLANs, but I'm rather suprised that it appears to be working with one VLAN but without trunks.

Actully you can run seperate access port links per vlan, chewing up a seperate physical port per vlan on each switch. There was a 2900 series switch I had a long time ago that supported vlans but not trunks.
It had a feature called multi vlan that you could add to a port, but this was a way of letting one port talk to all vlans and was messy.
But you could run a seperate cable for each vlan. if you have 5 vlans then 5 cables between switch A and switch B, port 1 vlan 1, port 2 vlan2, port 3 vlan3, etc...

Switch Port Trunk allowed Vlan

Hi Guys
Request your help on my query :
I have a distribution switch and access switch and port channel between them.
Dist switch is the VTP server
lets assum I have 25 vlan
when I do show vlan brief on the access switch I can see all 25 vlans listed now
no when I configure switch port trunk allowed vlan (ex : permitting 10 vlans )on the link connecting to access switch at Dist switch
Dist switch po1 -- connecting to - po Access switch
Dist switch #
int po1
switch port trunk alllowed vlan x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,
After permitting 10 vlan through trunk allowed vlan and then when I do show vlan brief on the access switch , I should see only the 10 vlan whcih I have permiited right ?
Thanks in advance

Hi,
John is absolutely correct - even if you do not permit a VLAN on a trunk, it can still provide communication among local ports on a switch that are all assigned to the same VLAN.
I have a feeling that your original question was focused on a different aspect, though: You probably expected that if you exclude some VLANs from trunks, these VLANs will not be propagated via VTP to surrounding switches. Sadly, this is not the case. The switchport trunk allowed vlan command only affects data traffic in individual VLANs but it has no impact on the operation of VTP protocol. The VTP still advertises all VLANs, regardless of which VLANs are allowed on a trunk. To put it plainly, in a VTP domain, all server/client switches will know about all VLANs. THere is no legal possibility of having a single VTP domain consisting of server/client switch and yet have the switches differ in their VLAN database contents. It's as easy as that: one VTP domain = one big common VLAN database.
Best regards,
Peter

Configuring layer 3 switches as trunk mode

Hi,
I designed my network in Packet tracer as seen below. am trying to configure the switched as trunk but am keep getting this message (under the picture)

You need the command switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q before you issue the switchport mode trunk command.

Ethernet address on two trunked switches at the same time

I have two access layer switches sharing a dot1q trunk ( a port channel with four members), and an HP blade server with one connection (a port channel with two members) into each.. The blade server's connections into each switch is also a dot1q trunk tagging just one vlan. In each connection from the blade server to each switch the mac addresses look very much alike. I determine this by writing a script to log into both switches at once and run the "show mac add int" command on each port channel to the blade server. In tcpdumps the commands are sent typically about .1 - .4 seconds apart on average.
So if the "show mac addr int" command is being run .1 - .4 seconds apart on each switch and have a number of mac addresses in common, would this indicate that these ethernet addresses are flapping in a way that might cause interruptions in packet delivery? Some are experiencing missed pings. No VPCs are used in this configuration - just a pair of either 6509 or 7018 switches connected via a dot1q port channel.

It sounds to me like what you are trying to achieve is network teaming on the HP Blade Server whereby you can have a connection to two different switches.
Natively something like this would cause problems because both switchports (or portchannels) would see the same L2 Address which would then confuse upstream switches as they would not know where to forward frames to. I believe the HP servers may allow this type of setup but it requires a specific config on the teaming element to prevent a single MAC address being shown on two different ports.
Have a read of the whitepaper below:
http://www.hp.com/sbso/bus_protect/teaming.pdf

Problem connecting two trunks to sip provider using same CUBE

We need to connect two SIP trunks from service provider to Cisco CUCM 7.1 using CUBE “Cisco 2821”, SP using the following configuration:
First SIP PSTN Link Configuration(In-Out DID/DOD 218 7700 – 218 7799)
Customer IP Address =   10.196.191.158/30
SP IP Address = 10.196.191.157/30
Protocol= SIP
SIP Port = 5060
Transport Protocol=UDP
Voice Codec= G711 A-Law
DTMF = IN-Band DTMF without RFC2833
Signaling IP address = 10.201.20.49
IP Address 10.201.20.10 (Media IP) must be visible from IP PABX
Second SIP PSTN Link Configuration( Inbound Only 920009999)
Customer IP Address =   10.196.192.94/30
SP IP Address = 10.196.192.93/30
Protocol= SIP
SIP Port = 5060
Transport Protocol=UDP
Voice Codec= G711 A-Law
DTMF = IN-Band DTMF without RFC2833
SIP server IP address = 10.201.20.49
IP Address 10.201.20.10 (Media IP) must be visible from IP PABX
When we tried to configure both links on the same CUBE we faced two problems:
-          Routing issue, as we can’t route traffic using single CUBE through two different interfaces to the same destination “ i.e we have to configure static route commend (ip route 10.201.20.49 255.255.255.255 10.196.191.157 & ip route 10.201.20.49 255.255.255.255 10.196.192.93), sip traffic coming from one link can’t be sure to send it back to the same link.
-          SIP media & signaling control binding issue, as CUBE support sip binding using one interface only “one IP Address”, if we not using binding commands on the CUBE we can’t receive any calls though any link.
We have two options:
SP to send both traffic on the same trunk link
Or
Have another CUBE for the second link.
Attached network diagram.
Any solution?????
Regards,
Ahmed Rizk

I didn't mean NAT CUCM, I meant the interface towards it. But since you're using a single interface then yes that is what you NAT. You have a lot going on in that config. Probably a lot more than you need. Like I said you should work on this in two legs. CUBE to ITSP, and then CUCM to CUBE. You're trying to make the whole thing work in one shot which is going to cause you some headaches.
Install XLite free version. In the account settings set your UserID to a generic 10 digit phone number, domain to something generic, then at the bottom set the Proxy Address to the IP of your CUBE. The media ports will be negotiated dynamically between the CUBE and the ITSP. Since you said you're not registering you will also need to give the ITSP YOUR peer IP (this is how they secure the trunk) which is whatever IP you're sourcing from when you leave your network (what you're NAT'ing the CUBE to).
For testing, reduce your config to something like this:
voice service voip
allow-connections sip to sip
allow-connections h323 to sip
no supplementary-service sip moved-temporarily
no supplementary-service sip refer
signaling forward none
sip
dial-peer voice 10 voip
description CUBE_TO_ITSP
session protocol sipv2
session target ipv4:SIGNALING IP PROVIDED BY ITSP
destination-pattern [2-9].........
codec g711ulaw
dtmf-relay rtp-nte sip-notify
no vad
dial-peer voice 20 voip
description ITSP_TO_CUBE
destination-pattern .
session protocol sipv2
session target ipv4:Eventually your CUCM IP...for now set it to your computers IP.
codec g711ulaw
dtmf-relay rtp-nte sip-notify
no vad
Use XLite to place a phone call from your PC (if you have a mic and speakers you can have audio if the call connects). This should come pretty close to getting your outward leg established. Once you get this part working you can add in more codecs and translation profiles if you want. Let me know what happens. Include any debug or packet cap results if you can.

Catalyst 6500 Block Switching Between Trunk Ports

Hello all,
I have a Catalyst 6509-E with SUP2T and a WS-68xx series SFP line card. On this line card I will have 5 trunk connections going to ME3400 4 port access switches. There is one tagged VLAN allowed on all trunk ports and it is the same across them all. I need to have one trunk connection be allowed to switch to all ports within this VLAN and the remaining 3 ports be denied to switch between eachother. The remaining three ports would only be able to switch to the primary trunk port.
For informational purposes I want to point out that the downstream ME3400 access switches are performing QinQ on each connection so that when the traffic reaches the 6509 it will be double tagged.
Traditionally I have been able to do this on 12 port ME3400s using the built in UNI/NNI structure and on ME3800/3600 switches using EVCs and the "split-horizon" keyword on the bridge domain. However, the 6500 doesn't seem to support either one of these commands.
Does anyone have any ideas on how to accomplish this?

I'm really not all that savvy on private VLANs but I did look at them as an option. Would they be affective on trunk ports? Most config examples I have seen have shown them applied on access ports.
Can't see switchport protected:
6509(config-if)#switchport protected
^
% Invalid input detected at '^' marker.

Catalyst 6500 Block Switching Between Trunk Port

Hello all,
I have a Catalyst 6509-E with SUP2T and a WS-68xx series SFP line card. On this line card I will have 5 trunk connections going to ME3400 4 port access switches. There is one tagged VLAN allowed on all trunk ports and it is the same across them all. I need to have one trunk connection be allowed to switch to all ports within this VLAN and the remaining 3 ports be denied to switch between eachother. The remaining three ports would only be able to switch to the primary trunk port.
For informational purposes I want to point out that the downstream ME3400 access switches are performing QinQ on each connection so that when the traffic reaches the 6509 it will be double tagged.
Traditionally I have been able to do this on 12 port ME3400s using the built in UNI/NNI structure and on ME3800/3600 switches using EVCs and the "split-horizon" keyword on the bridge domain. However, the 6500 doesn't seem to support either one of these commands.
Does anyone have any ideas on how to accomplish this?

Duplicate posts.
Go here: https://supportforums.cisco.com/thread/2261414

Introducing new switch to TRUNKED network

I have 2 old 3550s acting as network cores, they are running HSRP together, and there is a trunk link from each core going to each leaf switch in my network for redundancy, stp controls the active/standby links...
I am about to replace an old 2950 leaf switch with a new 3750 and I don't want this switch to become the root for all VLANs in the topology, just some that are mainly local to this switch - any advice?
Also, would there be any other things that I should be careful with or aware of before doing this? (no worries with VTP, running transparent mode everywhere)
Thanks...

hi,
If you need to tune STP you can use a number of different methods. Yo can manually set the STP priority of your switches. The lower the number to more chance that it will be the root. Here are some commands:
spanning-tree priority 1 (default is 32768) this will set a switch to be the root as long as every other switch has a default priority or higher.
If you want the switch to look at all the priority numbers on the Spanning-Tree and decide for you use:
spanning-tree vlan root primary
Pls rate if this helps.
Gavin

Unable to switch to trunk from branch checked out with CVS

Help!
We've run into a can't get there from here issue of not being able to switch back to the trunk when we've checked out a branch from CVS.
Using JDeveloper Studio Edition Version 11.1.1.1.0
Scenario:
Working on maintained in CVS.
Create Branch on code B1. (Versioning -> Branch, Branch Name = "B1", Source = "Trunk")
Now we can't get back to the trunk. When you select switch branch it only shows HEAD. Select that and you end up on some IDE generated tag called "HEAD", where you can't add files or check in changes.
How can you get back to the trunk?
rodger...

Are you aware that "always view this page in IE" isn't a standard feature in Firefox? It's a feature of a Firefox extension, which is why you can't find it on a Firefox help page.
Check the download page for that particular extension to find out how to change that preference, or tell us which extension that is and we'll look for a FAQ page for that extension.

Two srw switches with vlans and pfsense gatway

Hi,
I've got a bit of a problem that a can't seem to get a handle of things.
I've got two srw 48 port switches that I would like to link together and then on to the pfsense box.
First I'd like to connect the two switches to see if everything works and then on connect the pfsense box.
Now I would be very great full if someone with a bit more experience with VLANs would be so kind to walk me trough the procedure of creating VLANs, configuring them to ports on the switch and connecting the whole thing to another switch.
This is what I've done so fare.
1. I created 3 VLANs on both switches (VLAN2-office,VLAN3-WiFi, VLAN5-VoIP). I've created these VLANs with the same tags on all the devices.
2. I configured the ports that connect the switches as trunk. (I can't seem to be able to configure anything else on this port. Is there something else I should configure on these ports?)
Now as fare as I understand the documentation the VLANs on each switch should now see each other.
I'm still not sure on how to configure a physical port to one VLAN. After creating the VLANs on both switches and connecting them trough the trunk port I set ports 10-20 to VLAN2 by going to VLAN Management -> Ports to VLAN I selected VLAN2 and marked ports general and untagged and saved the settings. I repeated the procedure on the other switch. Now if I stuck my network cable into one of this ports I didn't get an IP anymore form the DHCP witch means that they were on a different VLAN than the other ports so I setup another router to act as a test DHCP with a different IP range as the main DHCPto see if it works. Now when I connectedthe test router to one of the ports in VLAN2 and my PC to the same VLAN2 port I got the test IP no problem. But when I connected the PC to the other switch VLAN2 port nothing happened until I connected the test DHCP to one of the VLAN2 ports. So clearly the switch VLANs are not communicating.
Now I don't know did I forget something, made a mistake with some setting or I just don't know what I'm doing because I think I need to get the VLANs between switches working before tackling the pfsense connection.
I would be really great full if someone explains to me how to set these VLANs up so that they would work between switches.
Thank you for your help.

Hi,
I was successful and I did exactly that. I put all VLANs on trunk ports and the switch to switch to pfSense started to work.
The only thing that gave me some problems was the end port(port connecting to the device pc, phone, printer) configuration. I was under the impression that the port was supposed to be in general mode and tagged. But I figured out that the port is supposed to be in access mode and untagged and only a member of one VLAN(the one I wanted it to connect to).
Anyway all is working now and I've figured out all the kinks.
So thanks guys for the help.
Nice day to all.
Bye

Trunking off a switch that is connected as a vPC peer

Hello,
Yesterday I ran into an issue in someones environment where they wanted to trunk a 2960 switch (Lets call it SwitchA) off of another 2960 (SwitchB) switch which was a vPC peer to a set of Nexus 5k's. When he did this, he noticed his phones were unable to communicate with the voice gateway. The same VLANs were allowed across the trunk from SwitchA to SwitchB and to the Nexus5K
When I moved SwitchA to its own port channel and vPC the voice traffic was able to communicate just fine. I am more concerned about this issue for learning/experience purposes. Has anyone run into a similar issue or know of a vPC rule that is preventing SwitchA from hanging off SwitchB? I have never seen a setup where someone wanted to do that when using vPC's but am still curious about that setup incase I run into it again in the future.
Thanks,

Hey Madhu,
Thanks for your reply.
Yes, I was allowing the same VLAN over the peer-link also. If I wasnt then all the other IDF switches would of had downed phones. The odd thing also is when SwitchA was trunked to SwitchB desktops had connectivity but phones didnt. I then SSH'd into SwitchA and tried pinging the gateway for VLAN 120 (Voice VLAN) and was able to hit the gateway and the phone system, showing I had connectivity. For some reason though, the handsets just werent finding the router.

Switch trunking ports

Hello,
If I have switch A that has 3 vlans with ip addresses in other words 3 switch virtual interfaces and I configure one port as a switchport trunk that has the following commands switchport trunk mode and encapulasation dot1q. Now if I want connect to another switch B to allow those same vlans to go accross and then put 5 ports in those 3 vlans. The port from switch B that connects to switch A I would configure with the following commands switchport mode trunk and encapulasation dot1 my question is do I just configure on both switch ports switchport trunk allowed vlan all for devices from both switches in the same vlans to talk to each other or do I still need to add more commands to both switches like add the same svi from switch A to Switch B?

Hi Horacio
It sounds like you are pretty much there from reading your original post.
Using the following commands creates a trunk port between the switches:
#switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
#switchport mode trunk
If you use these commands on both the switches you are connecting together, you should get a trunk port form and by default this allows all vlans to pass traffic across it.
If you want to restrict the trunk so that it only passes traffic for specific vlans, this can be achieved using the following command:
#switchport trunk allowed vlan [X]
Replace the [X] with the vlans you want to allow. Make sure you do this both sides otherwise you may find one side sending traffic which is dropped by the other side.
Make sure the Layer 2 Vlans exist on both switches. The SVI you mentioned with be the default gateway for hosts in that Vlan and only needs to exist on the switch which is performing the intervlan routing, you do not need an SVI on each switch for every Vlan.
Hope this helps

PVLAN types of Trunk Links

Hello Guys,
I made this post in my Blog and I want you to review it and correct it if you please.
http://cisco-discussions.blogspot.com/2013/08/private-vlans-and-its-different-types.html
PVLAN types of Trunk Links
The different types of PVLAN trunk links is based upon the required connection between switches the you want to connect. Here are some scenarios that you may want to implement and what types of PVLAN trunks you may use.
Scenario #1: Normal Trunk
You need to propagate PVLANs between two or more switches which all are supporting the PVLAN feature,
Here you will use the normal trunk link between the two switches and the Secondary PVLANs will pass through the trunk normally just like any other normal VLAN with a single Tag.
For example:
When PC1 in VLAN 201 on Switch A try to connect to PC4 in Vlan 201 on Switch B, its traffic will go through the trunk with Tag 201 but Switch B will ban this traffic because of the nature of isolated PVLAN which prevent PCs inside to connect each other.
When PC2 in VLAN 202 on Switch A try to connect to PC5 in Vlan 202 on Switch B, its traffic will go through the trunk with Tag 202 and Switch B will forward it to PC5 port based on its MAC address table.
When the router send traffic for PC5 it send traffic on the promiscuous trunk (will be discussed later) with Tag 100 and it will carried through the normal trunk between the two switches with also tag 100 untill it reach switch 2 then it will consult its CAM table and find that PC5 in Vlan 100 and also in Vlan 202.
Scenario #2:
Promiscuous Trunk
(This type of trunk is supported on Catalyst 4500 and higher switches)
You need to a switch configured with PVLAN with a router using a trunk link (Router-on-a-stick) and use this trunk for InterVLAN-Routing between the PVLANs and other Normal VLANs.
Here you have PCs into the secondaries PVLANs which need to connect with another PC3 in VLAN 50 which is a normal VLAN. As normal when you want to make interVLAN routing you may use Router-On-A-Stick model which uses a trunk link from the switch side and sub-interfaces from router side.
Because the usual Promiscuous port is an access port and can't carry more than one vlan which was the Primary PVLAN, Cisco made the Promiscuous trunk port to solve this scenario.
The Promiscuous trunk port translates the secondary VLAN Tag to the Primary VLAN tag to send traffic to the router to perform Inter-Vlan Routing.
For example:
PC1 into VLAN 12 need to connect with another PC3 in VLAN 50 which is a normal VLAN, traffic originated from PC1 into VLAN 12 will be broadcast to the Promiscuous trunk port with Tag 12 the it will translate the Tag to vlan 10 which the router knows it.
When the router find it with Tag 10, it will receive it on the sub-interface of vlan 10 and forward it based on its destination IP as normal case.
When the router receive the reply from PC3 in VLAN 50 and based on the destination IP, it will forward it through the sub-interface of vlan 10 to the switch.
When the switch receive it with Tag 10, it consults the MAC address table of vlan 10 to know which PC has that destination MAC because the MAC address table of vlan 10 contains all learned MACs for PCs in Primary and secondary VLANs (10,11,12).
Scenario #3:
Secondary PVLAN Trunk
(This type of trunk is supported on Catalyst 4500 and higher switches)
This trunk is sometimes called Isolated PVLAN trunk but on the switch configuration CLI it is called as above.
This trunk link type is used when you need to extend an Isolated PVLAN through a switch which doesn't support the PVLAN feature.
The problem here is that if we made the trunk between the 4500 & 2950 switches as a normal trunk, this trunk won't follow the rules of Isolated VLAN which states that no inter-hosts communication inside the isolated VLAN so PC2 can communicate PC1 through that normal trunk.
For the previous reson, Cisco made the Isolated trunk port for expanding an Isolated VLAN through a non-PVLAN cabaple switch with preserving the rules of Isolated VLAN.
Isolated trunk port translate the primary vlan tag into the isolated secondary vlan tag to be able to communicate with the non-PVLAN cabalple switch.
For example: 4 cases
PC4 from a normal VLAN 20 need to connect the PC3 on the 2950 switch.
The PC4 from VLAN 20 will send a normal traffic to the router and router will forward it through the promiscuous trunk port to VLAN 10 which is the primary VLAN as per the previous scenario#2.
the switch will receive this frame and consult its MAC address table to find the destination MAC.
let's suppose that it found it on the trunk with 2950 switch, then it will forward it to the 2950 switch and translate the Tag of 10 to 11 because the 2950 switch doesn't know VLANs except VLAN 11.
then the PC3 on 2950 switch receive it and reply on PC4 from vlanVLAN11 and when 4500 switch try to forward it to the router through the promiscuous trunk port, it will translate the tag to 10.
      2. PC1 need to connect with PC 3:
PC1 will send the traffic to the 4500 switch which has the MAC of PC3 into is MAC address table of VLAN 11 (the host MACs into secondary PVLAN associated with both its attached secondary PVLAN as well as the primary PVLAN).
the 4500 switch will ban this communication due to Isolated VLAN rules.
      3. PC3 need to connect with PC1:
PC3 will send the traffic to 2950 switch the 2950 switch after consulting its CAM table will forward it through the trunk with tag11.
When 4500 switch see the traffic with tag 11 the it will consult its CAM table for destination MAC which will be present on its CAM and this traffic will be banned.
If the 4500 switch doesn't know where is the destination MAC it will flood the traffic through the promiscuous port only because communication inside Isolated VLAN is prohibited.
     4. if PC2 need to communicate with PC3:
It can be done successfully through the 2950 switch because it doesn't support the private VLAN concept.
The solution here is to configure the ports on VLAN 11 on 2950 switch as a Cisco protected ports.
    This scenario is valid if you also need to extend A Community PVLAN but you don't need to do the Step     4 which is related to Protected Ports.
Conclusion of How Traffic go through different types of ports:
Access Ports:
Promiscuous ports: carry untagged traffic for Primary and Secondary PVLANs
Host Ports:
Isolated Ports: carry untagged traffic for Isolated PVLAN.
Community Ports: carry untagged traffic for Community PVLAN.
Protected Ports: it simulate as Isolated PVLAN but it is not related to PVLAN feature, this port is locally significant to the switch. Any protected port on a switch can't communicate at L2 to other Protected ports on the same switch, to communicate between two protected ports, it must be through L3 device.
Trunk Ports:
Normal Trunk: carry tagged traffic for all primary and secondary PVLANs and normal VLAN. Any traffic go through this trunk keeps the Tag of traffic without changing it.
Promiscuous Trunk: carry tagged traffic for only primary and normal VLANs. Any traffic sourced from secondaries PVLANs is go through this trunk using the primary PVLAN tag.
Secondary Trunk: carry tagged traffic for only secondary PVLANs. Any traffic sourced from primary & secondaries PVLANs is go through this trunk using the secondary PVLAN tag.
Another article will be posted soon or an update will be made to this article to illustrate the configuration of each type of these trunks.

Hi Khaled,
I came across this good article while trying to figure out how to extend PVLAN from a physical network into a vmware network running on a blade server that has an integrated switch that doesn't support PVLANs.
It looked like the isolated PVLAN trunk as you described it would be what I needed. I first started looking at this after reading somewhere that PVLAN support on a blade switch wasn't needed with the NEXUS 1000v. I have yet to verify that, but was thinking it may have to do with the isolated PVLAN trunk feature. Again, I haven't verified that it is supported on the 1000v.
Anyway, my question is with the below that you noted in your post. I haven't seen anywhere yet that says you can pass community PVLANs across the isolated trunk. The NEXUS 7000 document I read actually says you can't add community PVLANS to the trunk. The documentation that I have read says the mapped secondary VLANs can only communicate with permiscuous ports. Since it is actually called ISOLATED PVLAN trunk it would seem that it doesn't support community PVLANs. Do you have documentation on this being supported?
This is your note that I haven't been able to verify:
This scenario is valid if you also need to extend A Community PVLAN but you don't need to do the Step 4 which is related to Protected Ports.
Would placing the community VLANs in the normal VLAN list on the isolated PVLAN trunk maintain the PVLAN configuration?
VLAN 10 - primary
VLAN 11 - isolated
VLAN 12 - community
VLAN 20 - normal
Isolated trunk = Isolated VLAN = 11 mapped to Primary VLAN 10, VLAN 12 and VLAN 20 configured as normal VLANs on trunk.
Would traffic arriving on the trunk on VLAN 12 of the 4500 be able to communicate with the other devices in the community VLAN 12 and the router connected to the promiscuous trunk?
Thank you,
Mark

Load balancing on 2 pair outdoor AP1300 and 1 switch C3560 each end

Hi,
i will configure four AP1300 and two C3560G with load balancing can you help me.
this my design:
1. (AP1300#1 on switch A) <-----trunk via AP1300------> (AP1300#2 on switch B)
2. (AP1300#3 on switch A) <-----trunk via AP1300------> (AP1300#4 on switch B)
If uplink no.1 down i have uplink no.2 still up for a second.
Regards,
Edgar

If I understand the question I think that isdn bchan-number-order is the command you are interested in. I think it detaults to round-robin, sounds like you want ascending (that is isdn bchan-number-order ascending). It is an interface subcommand.
See http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_3t/12_3t2/feature/guide/gt_ibcac.html#wp1055853
That may only apply to native ISDN calls and not MICA based calls, but see if that helps.

Two switches, two trunks

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for