TP-LINK Smart Switches anyone?
-
-
Is there a "Management VLAN" option anywhere in the menus?
If not, unfortunately this very basic "Easy Smart" model may not support this. This means the swicth's management interface is tied to VLAN 1.However, you can trick the whole thing by leaving it as it is in VLAN 1, and in pfSense configure the interface connecting to the switch also as untagged in 192.168.0.X/24. By simply putting all the other ports of the switch in different VLANs, you'll keep VLAN 1 as your management VLAN for the switch only.
No there is no "Management VLAN" anywhere in the menus. At the moment I have defined 3 vlans, VLAN 100/VLAN 200/VLAN 300 on pfsense box for the igb1 interface (which is connected to the switch). Are you suggesting one of the following?
a. Define "192.168.0.X/24" on the parent interface of these vlans
b. Create an additional VLAN 1 on pfsense box and define it as "192.168.0.X/24"Thanks
-
At least something like a "default" VLAN?
OK, just had a look at the manual. Well, you don't even configure this device directly but through an "Easy Smart Configuration Utility".
Just try putting all ports on one VLAN (like your V100) and see if you can still reach the device through the utility program.
Otherwise, the reset button is right next to the RJ45 ports… -
Are you suggesting one of the following?
a. Define "192.168.0.X/24" on the parent interface of these vlans
That's exactly what I'm suggesting.
And don't forget to set the proper gateway address in the System IP address of the switch. -
As far as the Zyxels are concerned in our environment, the management just decided to replace them all with TP-Links so the whole VLAN-divided network will be homogeneous.
They will be used as simple dumb Layer II swhicthes at special events only, where quick deployment of tens of ports is needed for a few days only - no VLANs used at their level anymore.Zyxels performed well in our environment as long as they didn't need to handle VLANs connected to non-zyxel equipment. So - as dumb switches, or as members of a VLANned network where only Zyxels are exchanging tagged packets with each other - they are fine. Looking at the swith solely it's not possible to RMA it, because it's not defective. It just simply has interoperability problems with other manufacturers equipment, and that seems to be by design.
-
Zyxels performed well in our environment as long as they didn't need to handle VLANs connected to non-zyxel equipment.
ZyXEL has been making switches a long time. I can't believe they can't handle dot1q.
-
I want to use port 8 as a trunk port and want to connect a freenas box to it. The freenas box will have multiple vlan setup. Before going down the Freenas route i wanted to check if indeed port 8 was being set as a trunk port. I hooked up my linux laptop to the port 8 after defining a vlan100 for its nic. Unfortunately, the linux laptop was unable to get the ip address from VLAN100 (LAN).
Is this the right way to define port 8 as a tunk port (images attached)?
-
untagging multiple vlans on the same port is seldom a good idea.
vlan trunks generally use tagging…..
-
Ok. This is how i got this working. Had to change Port 8 to tagged. And now the laptop is able to get the ip address.
-
When you have multiple VLANs on one port they all should be tagged, making it a trunk.
If you need a VLAN untagged then it should be the only VLAN on that port (and PVID). -
Hi all,
I have this setup:1 x.x.x.x/24 public pool (I get to the internet through a ethernet port on the rack that is connected to the switch)
1 tp-link TL-SL2428 switch
7 pcs (this machines change the ip from time to time)
2 servers (mail, web, ssh, etc)all using the referred x.x.x.x/24 public pool
All this runs ok, I just plug the ethernet wires to the switch and have no problem
Now they are asking me to add a new /24 pool to use with the same hardware (or add more machines) so lets call the new
range y.y.y.y/24 which It would be provided through a different ethernet portMy idea is:
Plug a wire from a free port of the switch to the new rack's port that it provides the new y.y.y.y/24 public range
Let the wire for the x.x.x.x/24 as it is (plugged)So with this setup when I configure a machine's ip, gateway, etc according to range y.y.y.y/24 it should get out to the internet
in the same way it does x.x.x.x/24.Am I right?
I think I do not even need vlans right?
If I am and that works I have a few more doubts I'd like to ask.
Thank you. -
Don't do that.
x.x.x.x/24 and y.y.y.y/24 are different networks, they must never be on the same layer II segment.Those switches are inexpensive. Just buy another one if you don't want to mess with VLANs and have free space in the rack.
If not, make 3 VLANs:- VLAN1 (this is factory default, keep it for management of the switch), and assign it to one single dedicated management port (say port 24) just for managing the switch now and in the future. Remove all the other ports from VLAN1!
- VLAN10 for x.x.x.x/24, assign ports, for example, from 1 to 8 to this, connect old ISP wire to port 1
- VLAN20 for y.y.y.y/24, assign ports, for example, from 9 to 16 to this, connect new ISP wire to port 9
Connect the pcs and servers according to their correct pools to the ports above.
Maybe you could label the ports visually on the switch or rack, to remember easily which ports belong to which pool.
-
I did not get the email notice of the answer, sorry to write back so late.
Thanks Robi, the thing is I'll use the same pcs on these two networks.
I can't go and plug or unplug them.Any coment?
Thanks. -
It shouldn't even be possible to put multiple VLANs on a port untagged. Quality code, that.
-
It shouldn't even be possible to put multiple VLANs on a port untagged. Quality code, that.
Slightly disagree here!
I have a setup where this is a must (but only one VLAN is PVID, of course). And that's with Cisco SG300 switches.
I even re-program the switchport's VLANs on the fly with a Crestron control system to switch between IP-TV feeds. The whole idea is based on this.
https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=76022.msg471063#msg471063 -
Riddle me this? What VLAN is the switch supposed to place an untagged packet on if the switch port is configured with multiple untagged VLANs? It's nonsensical.
This is different from a cisco general port where there is one untagged PVID and the rest of the VLANs on the port are tagged.
-
What VLAN is the switch supposed to place an untagged packet on if the switch port is configured with multiple untagged VLANs?
The one with the PVID, of course. The other is used for "listening" only.
In the setup I'm referring to both VLANs on a port are untagged. One has PVID, the other doesn't (of course). Yes, untagged. ;-)
If I have some spare time someday I'll sketch it up to show you.
It's a really fascinating setup with the switch in L3 mode, overlapping subnets and all kind of unusual things.
The system is engineered this way and working rock-solid! We are distributing IP-TV channels through a larger venue with 120Mb/stream and a max. latency of 30ms @1080p50.
Because the setup is so unusual (and most users cannot figure out how to setup the switch correctly) JustAddPower offers a program to configure the switches for you.
Here's a screenshot of a rather simple (one switch) configuration taken from their tutorial video.
Look at the VLAN subnets as compared to the transmitter's subnets…
 -
For clarification of usage and to be back on VLAN tagging again:
Transmitter1 has VLAN10 and VLAN11(PVID) on its port. A receiver port for stream1 has VLAN10(PVID) and VLAN11.
Exchange VLAN11 with VLAN12 for the second stream, VLAN13 for the third, etc.
To switch a receiver's stream from TX1 to TX2 all I have to do is remove VLAN11 from this receiver's port and add VLAN12 instead. -
Sounds like some sort of asymmetric VLAN scheme, with the second VLAN not really used as a VLAN but to group ports instead.
-
It's not asymmetric at all, more like a ring.
Dig deeper! :P Hint: switch is in L3 mode and doing quite some routing.
