Is there a way to pass the two different vlan traffic in a single port.
like the following vlan 3 and 21 in fa0/23. But port fa0/23 is connected to an unmanagable 16 port switch.
Current configuration : 7571 bytes
no service pad
service timestamps debug uptime
service timestamps log uptime
enable secret 5 $1$
no aaa new-model
clock timezone UTC 3
system mtu routing 1500
no ip domain-lookup
no ip dhcp conflict logging
ip dhcp excluded-address 10.10.3.1 10.10.3.50
ip dhcp pool THREE
network 10.10.3.0 255.255.255.0
vlan internal allocation policy ascending
ip address 10.10.0.2 255.255.255.0
storm-control broadcast level 50.00
storm-control multicast level 50.00
In this port I want to pass both traffic of vlan 3 and 21. This port is connected to 16 port unmanagable switch. In that 16 port switch has both vlans client PCs.
Pls help me how to do it.
no ip address
ip address 10.10.3.1 255.255.255.0
ip address 141.xxx.xxx.18 255.255.255.0
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.10.0.1
ip route 141.xxx.xxx.16 255.255.255.0 141.xxx.xxx.1
ip http server
Would it work to configur the fort as a TRUNK port: ie
description trunk to 16-port Switch
switchport trunk allowed vlan 1,3,21
switchport mode trunk
thanks for the reply.
Yes I tried but its not passing both traffic if i did that only vlan 3 traffic i can get in the other end.
And also i tried this in this one its passing only vlan 21. if ichange the native vlan to 3 its passing only vlan 3 traffic.
switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
switchport trunk native vlan 21
switchport trunk allowed vlan 3,21
switchport mode trunk
Unless there some special trick or configuration, this is not possible. The point of the vlan is to separate different networks. By putting both vlans into the same switch, they are mixing the network together then. Also, the end device when it replies, which vlan will the switch put it on? Since the end devices are not on a vlan (because of the unamanged switch), there is no vlan tagging going on, when the frames get to the managed switch, it doesn't really know which vlan to put the frame on. If there is a feature to assign mac addresses to a specific vlan, then you can do it, but I know of no such feature.
Maybe I spoke too soon. Check this out and see if its what you are looking for:
You can't really do this. Even if you could send traffic associated with both vlans the switchport toward the unmanaged switch, what would it do with received frames. Would they be part of vlan a or vlan b?
If you set a trunk port on Fa0/23 then you need a trunk on the other end. otherwise frames would be sent from the other switch (unmanaged) as untagged.
I would suggest getting a switch that supports dot1q trunks. or put machines on the same subnet...
Paul is dead-on. vlan-tagging is needed here. You need the connected switch to support and read that 4byte vlan tags.
Since you have an unmanaged switch how did you create the two different VLANs? I am really curious to hear "how" you did this. I think you will find that "unmanaged" switches have all ports in a single VLAN. Hence, when you changed the native VLAN on the "managed" swicth you were only able to pass the "native" VLAN.
You cannot accomplish this with an "unmanaged" switch.
I agree that this is not possible, but I'm still curious about the realworld application here. Do you have hosts connected to the unmanaged switch that need to access devices on VLAN A and VLAN B?
their is a way to do it, but you have to trick it a little and configure the 2nd vlan, like as voice vlan. Doing it this way will give you 2 vlans, but if you connect anything else to the port, it would not active the 2nd vlan since it is looking for a phone.
Please do explain how you get two VLANs to be active on an "unmanaged" switch? Now, lets say you have VLAN 3 and VLAN 21 as in the original example with the following IP subnets 192.168.3.0/24 (VLAN 3) and 192.168.21.0/24 (VLAN 21). You can configure two hosts one with IP address 192.168.3.100 and the other 192.168.21.100 in order to represent the two VLANs. This does not mean the two VLANs are active. You can only pass two VLANs on the 3560 by configuring a "trunk" port. The "unmanaged" switch does not understand the concepts of "trunking" or "VLANs". It is nothing more than a Hub with full-duplex enabled and CSMA/CD turned off.
The problem is not in the 3560, but the "unmanaged" switch.
Correct me if I'm wrong but couldn't you configure 2 ports on the managed switch, one with untagged VLAN 3, the other with untagged VLAN 21, patching each port into the unmanaged switch. I think this would accomplish the results as requested above. But wouldn't this effectively defeat the purpose of using VLANs in the first place?
I suppose alternatively you could use a second unmanaged switch and designate each unmanaged switch to a specific VLAN (i.e. one unmanaged switch is patched into VLAN21, the other into VLAN 3).
Yes that would work, but you still do not have two VLANs on the "unmanaged" switch and you are now using two ports on the 3560. I like the second idea of an "unmanaged" switch for each VLAN. Again, this still uses two ports on the 3560.
"Unmanaged" switches are just that, "unmanaged". You canot configure any parameters whatsoever. They are nothing more than HUBs that work in full-duplex mode and have CSMA/CD turned off.
Hello to all in the discussion,
I appreciate the comments by brian and found that the initiaitor still wants two vlans on the same unmanaged switch.
I have found one thing on the easy track : why dont you simply have a cheaper unmanaged switch for the other vlan ?
If there is , anyhow, NO we cant, then you can try doing trunk through "untagged trunking".... I am not sure on that part anyhow it really has anything useful.. but as the theory says .... it can pass the traffic in an untagged way and i am quite sure that if you are able to send untagged traffic to the unamanaged switch then you can simply send the trafffic to the managed switch and let it decide which vlan it belongs to .... I will give it a try ... but need brian in the discussion any how....
Brian ... plz suggest ...