Trunking VLANs on interfaces II
-
It is a blog – Says so right there..
Called Curts Blog... Dude really... All things Curt... How is that not a blog? Its listed right next to tuna casserole - really really good ;) and Power Air Fryer Oven..
This is starting to get really funny ;) Is it a not a blog kind of how a router interface is not a switch port - yet you can bridge them?? ROFL
-
It is a blog – Says so right there..
Called Curts Blog... Dude really... All things Curt... How is that not a blog? Its listed right next to tuna casserole - really really good ;) and Power Air Fryer Oven..
This is starting to get really funny ;) Is it a not a blog kind of how a router interface is not a switch port - yet you can bridge them?? ROFL
You got the old link. This link which is the above link
http://www.curtronics.com/Networking/pfSense/pfSenseTrunkedVLANs.html
Is not a blog. Take a screenshot for that link and show me the blog Dude.
-
I am going to leave that up as an example of how not to solve that problem.
ETA: Attachment reflecting how someone might accomplish the same task.
 -
This is my network as cofigured and running just fine performance wise.
This is how you want me to configure it.
All because you don't like Bridging VLANs on a router.
-
Nope. Not even close.
You burned up two router ports instead of two switch ports and inserted a software/CPU bridge where one need not exist.
It is sad.
-
Where did I burn up two router ports? I'm using three router ports either way.
Your way I use an additional 4 switch ports.
I'm not putting 3 VLANs over 1 wire to the first switch and spreading out from there. That's what I had. That's what I don't want. That was the purpose of this whole exercise. To NOT do that. Let the router do it's job and keep the three subnets isolated.
And I have two unused router ports still with no current need for them. So I'm not burning up noth'n.
Here's current traffic graphs. I don't think that traffic peak of 1K on VLAN EM310 nor the peak of 50 bytes, yes bytes, on EM410 is going to degrade network performance.
Which is what I've been saying all along…
 -
With those traffic levels there is zero reason to even think about tagging all three VLANs to your layer 2. Just do it and remove the nonsense bridge that will in no way EVER perform as well as tagging everything on one trunk link if traffic levels ever increase in any meaningful way.
You have pigeonholed yourself into not being able to put any VLAN anywhere, too.
Adds/Moves/Changes happen. Requirements change.
But, for the third time, good luck. Glad you got it sorted and you think it works for you.
-
No I followed that link… Its still listed on your blog.. You think people not going to flow up to the parent domain?
See how simple and sleek the design Derelict posted... This way you can put any vlan anywhere in your switch environment.. Your limited to where vlan 20 and 30 can go.. So you could tie up 2 extra router ports on the same layer 2.
Because of why exactly? You don't know how to change the default vlan on your switch - you think its 10...You do understand the default vlan on a switch is ANY untagged traffic right.. Switch calls it vlan X - but just means untagged traffic outside of the switch environment.. That vlan 10 only means anything on that switch.. You can get to the management vlan be it tagged or untagged into the switch its up to you.
You can call that vlan anything you want as you connect switches together.. Or as you connect to them.. As to the layer 3 you put on it - can be anything you want.. Sure doesn't have to be the same layer 2 through out your network.
Why is it you think vlan 10 has to be same layer 2 through out your infrastructure? Its just a management IP why can it not be vlan 10, 11 and 12 on your different branches of switches on 192.168.10, 192.168.11 and 192.168.12
As I stated before if you wanted a "switch" on your router - should of gotten the sg-3100..
-
This is getting out of hand! :-\
Can we stick to constructive criticism please.
I think we can all agree that if you just need a single layer 2 available at all the switches and you don't need filtering between the segments then trunking the VLAN directly between the switches is preferable.
If however you don't have a direct connection between those switches already then bridging the VLANs in pfSense can work. It's ugly and if you find yourself doing it then you might want to think about adding a direct link instead. But it can work in a pinch. I've done it myself to avoid a major change for a 5min test.
Steve
-
stephenw10; Thank you.
johnpoz: If a person goes to the parent domain and sees that I have a blog that makes the article I linked to SPAM? Get real.
You're making assumptions again without facts in evidence. The default VLAN is not the same on all my switches.
I purposely limited where 20 and 30 can go, that is by design and is why they are isolated. 30 is high continuous traffic 24/7, 20 can be at times for hours at a time. The traffic on each is confined on each. I do not want either to adversely affect one another or 10 which has its own purpose besides being the default for the majority of the switches
Look, I came to this forum to ask how to configure pfSense to do exactly what I have done. Instead of getting help all I got was hostility and telling me how stupid this configuration is and how stupid I am and many other personal attacks. And I had to figure it out myself in the end.
In case you haven't realized it Mr. Hero Member, you were of no help in this case. Put aside your I know the best way and it's the only way and help people do what they want whether you like it or not. And if you don't like it and can't do that then for God's sake leave the peole alone!
I've told you more and showed you more then you need to know. Once again I came here for help configuring pfSense to do what I want that's all you needed to know.
IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO HELP PLEASE JUST LEAVE ME AND THIS TOPIC ALONE!!!
This is what I want to do. This is what I did. This will work for my environment. It will have all the performance and flexibility I will ever need.
