TP-LINK Smart Switches anyone?
-
Had the SG2216 here in my home lab for some time. It's chinese craftmanship I think but works according to specs, and is rather easy to configure (the gui is acceptable & intinuitive).
Hard to beat for the price if you need more than 8 ports… -
the gui is acceptable & intinuitive
Yes and I see in the manual that there's also a CLI interface via Telnet and SSH.
Did you try it with pfSense as VLAN trunk?
Actually I already own a pair of TP-Link TL-SG1016 unmanaged ("dumb") switches. I am very satisfied with them, build quality is good, entirely passive construction (no fans at all - thus perfectly silent). They don't heat almost at all, and also noticed that indeed they work at theirs specs.
That's why I'm inclined to give a chane to the Smart version of the same…
-
No, didn't make a trunk. (Vlans yes, but there were ports enough so had at that time only 1 switch here… ;) )
Confident enough though that it would work. -
Using an "TL-SL3428" here, since a couple of years, and is OK (almost 2 years Uptime)
-
What makes you think the Easy Smart switches can't do a VLAN trunk? In fact I would argue there's almost no point having VLAN capability in a switch if it can't do a trunk connection. Note that 'VLAN trunk' is a Cisco term and others use differing terminology. TP-Link seem to be using uplink port.
Of course I've not use done so I could be reading the manual wrong. ;)Steve
-
What makes you think the Easy Smart switches can't do a VLAN trunk?
I went through the manual of one of the Easy Smart models, and at the VLAN chapter there was no mention about how to pass multiple VLANs through a port. As far as I understood, on the Easy Smart models, a port can either pass traffic untagged, or tagged with a single VLAN number, that's all. But I could be wrong, of course.
As opposed to the Smart models manual, where that possibility is written down.Noticed that TP-Link uses "Trunk" term for connecting switches with ports aggregated so that they have duble bandwidth/redundancy (similar to Cisco's EtherChannel).
-
^
Exactly, on most of those "cheap" Switches "Trunk" is intended for LAG…You can check this Topic (Spanish Forum section) showing "how to" configure a "Web Smart" TP-Link Switch with VLANs & pfSense ;)
https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,47388.0.html
-
What makes you think the Easy Smart switches can't do a VLAN trunk?
I went through the manual of one of the Easy Smart models, and at the VLAN chapter there was no mention about how to pass multiple VLANs through a port. As far as I understood, on the Easy Smart models, a port can either pass traffic untagged, or tagged with a single VLAN number, that's all. But I could be wrong, of course.
As opposed to the Smart models manual, where that possibility is written down.Noticed that TP-Link uses "Trunk" term for connecting switches with ports aggregated so that they have duble bandwidth/redundancy (similar to Cisco's EtherChannel).
I was looking at this today.
It appears to me that in section 6.1.1, you can tag multiple ports to various VLANs. I think in Figure 6-3, you'd just be adding lines to the VLAN table.
Of course, I have no real idea what I am doing because I am just getting into all this kind of stuff so grains of salt and all that.
-
@ptt:
You can check this Topic (Spanish Forum section) showing "how to" configure a "Web Smart" TP-Link Switch with VLANs & pfSense ;)
https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,47388.0.html
Thank you! It seems it's fesible with pfSense then. Cool.
"Web Smart" brand name no longer exists now, they just simply call them "Smart", and the TL-SL2218 in the link is indeed not an "Easy Smart" one.
-
I was looking at this today.
It appears to me that in section 6.1.1, you can tag multiple ports to various VLANs. I think in Figure 6-3, you'd just be adding lines to the VLAN table.
Yes indeed, that's what I was also hoping that I understood right.
My doubt was regarding to the "Easy Smart" models here: http://www.tp-link.com/en/products/?categoryid=2878 - these are the ones I guess don't support multiple VLANs on one port (aka Cisco "trunk").
-
Hmm, well I could be reading it wrong and I certainly agree it's not clear but:
@http://www.tp-link.com/resources/document/TL-SG1016DE_V1_User_Guide_Easy_Smart_Configuration_Utility.pdf:
MTU VLAN (Multi-Tenant Unit VLAN) defines an uplink port which will build up several VLANs with each of the other ports
What's the point of having three types of VLAN config if none of them can uplink tagged packets from multiple VLANs?
Steve
-
Hmm, well I could be reading it wrong and I certainly agree it's not clear but:
@http://www.tp-link.com/resources/document/TL-SG1016DE_V1_User_Guide_Easy_Smart_Configuration_Utility.pdf:
MTU VLAN (Multi-Tenant Unit VLAN) defines an uplink port which will build up several VLANs with each of the other ports
What's the point of having three types of VLAN config if none of them can uplink tagged packets from multiple VLANs?
Steve
Ah, different models.
What is the difference between what you are calling an uplink and just assigning the port for the pfSense machine to all the VLANS?
-
I got an HP Procuve 1810v2-24g(J9803A) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16833316731 for $210. All ports can be a trunk. While it does have 2 "uplink" ports, they're just normal ports, just with the option to use a fiber adapter as uplinks tend to need more range. I assume the TP-Link is the same.
Technically, you could just tag a port to have all VLANs and manually make sure all switches have the same VLAN ids. Still best to create a proper trunk.
-
This HP model costs twice than the TP-Link, in my area. Also, is the HP fanless?
Guys, an "uplink" port on these cheap switches means only that it can be connected to another switch using straight cables, meaning the port is autosensing. These days, all the ports can be "uplinks"… Tagging of the traffic has nothing to do with this feature.
-
I disagree for a couple of reasons.
There is no need for an uplink port such as you describe on a Gigabit switch since all ports are auto-MDX. Unless the switch has a single fibre or 10Gig port for that purpose, these dont.
I have never seen a switch that had VLAN capability that couldn't do a VLAN 'trunk'. Even those really cheap Netgear switchs that require a Windows utility to control them. (Edit: These are quite a bit cheaper though)
What would be the purpose of a switch that recognised VLAN tags but was unable use a trunk port?
1. You could divide the switch in to separate groups of ports that formed, in effect, separate switches.
2. You could possibly pass VLAN tagged traffic without stripping the tags.
Neither of those seem particularly useful in common applications.The 'uplink' port referred to in the instructions is specifically for VLANs.
Just to define it by 'VLAN trunk' I mean a connection carrying traffic with multiple different VLAN tags such that when connected to a pfSense box each of those VLANs can appear as a separate interface.
Of course I still haven't used one so I stand to be corrected. ;)
Steve
-
This HP model costs twice than the TP-Link, in my area. Also, is the HP fanless?
Guys, an "uplink" port on these cheap switches means only that it can be connected to another switch using straight cables, meaning the port is autosensing. These days, all the ports can be "uplinks"… Tagging of the traffic has nothing to do with this feature.
It is fanless. The TP-Link looks fine, feature wise. I only went with HP because my last job used HP and I had nothing but good experiences, plus I've read nothing but good reviews with customer support and warranty support.
-
Stephen, we're in the same boat. What I just wrote is that there's no "dedicated" uplink port these days anymore. Back in the old times (15 years ago) some switches and hubs had an additional dedicated uplink port (regardless of tagging features) where port connection was crossed internally, so that people could use straight cables to connect switches to each other or to routers. That port was nothing more than just the first or the last port on the switch duplicated to a cross-connected RJ-45 socket on the board, nothing more, and it was literally printed below it, the word "uplink". Pretty much like the SFP ports double ports 15 and 16 on the TL-SG2216. Maybe we could call these as uplinks dedicated - but only when using fibre optics.
Apart from that, you can use any port as "uplink" today, on these cheaper switces. Not on Ciscos, the Ciscos still require cross-cables to connect to each-other.
There are two types of TP-Links we're discussing in this topic:
Easy Smart Switches: http://www.tp-link.com/en/products/?categoryid=2878
Smart Switches: http://www.tp-link.com/en/products/?categoryid=223I've looked into the manual of the TL-SG1016DE Easy Smart Switch, and the manual of the TL-SG2216 Smart Switch, and noticed quite a lot of differences. Perhaps I misunderstood, but it seemed to me that the Easy Smart model is not capable of transferring multiple VLANs through a port. What's the point of having such a switch I don't know, and I don't really care.
What I opened this topic for is to be sure which one to buy, to be as sure as possible that it will work with pfSense and tagged VLANs.I ordered a TL-SG2216 yesterday btw. I'll test, and if it's OK, I'll order a second one later. And of course will post back here my experiences. This will not answer wether the TL-SG1016DE Easy model can or can't do this, however.
-
Yes, a lot of the HP switches are fanless. I have one. :-)
I saw one of the TP-Link switches at the local Fry's. Seemed interesting.
-
I'm sure the TL-SG2216 will be fine for what you need.
I think I'll probably get a TL-SG108E when they become generally available in the UK. They're so cheap that they are comparable to an unmanaged switch from other manufacturers. Looking at the manuals for the TL-SG108E and the TL-SG1016DE (both Easy Smart type) the 16 port appears to have some sort of web interface but I fear the 8 port may be Windows utility only. With the demise of XP I no longer have a Windows box readily available. :-
Anyway if get one I'll let you know for sure what it can and can't do. ;)Steve
-
Apart from that, you can use any port as "uplink" today, on these cheaper switces. Not on Ciscos, the Ciscos still require cross-cables to connect to each-other.
I'm not sure which Cisco switches you're using but every one I've used that was made in the last decade has worked just fine using straight-through cables on "trunk" links.
Let me know how you like the TP-Link - I've been eyeing the TL-SG3216.
