02-15-2013 11:43 PM - edited 03-07-2019 11:44 AM
Hello all,
I saw this statement in some documents said "Certain configurations of bridges may cause partitions of a VLAN on a link. For such configuration, a frame sent by one bridge to a neighbor on that link might not arrive, if tagged with a VLAN that is parittioned due to bridge configuration."
What does VLAN partition mean? Could anyone share your understandings? thanks a lot!
Solved! Go to Solution.
02-16-2013 02:02 AM
Hi Steve,
I have not yet encountered a similar term as VLAN partition. What the statement says, though, appears to me as a bridge misconfiguration where either the VLAN is not created on the bridge at all, hence the bridge will not forward frames in that particular VLAN (a common behavior for VLAN-aware switches), or the VLAN is created but is not configured to be bridged between a particular set of ports, resulting in two or more discontiguous domains.
Apart from this - I do not know
Best regards,
Peter
02-16-2013 02:02 AM
Hi Steve,
I have not yet encountered a similar term as VLAN partition. What the statement says, though, appears to me as a bridge misconfiguration where either the VLAN is not created on the bridge at all, hence the bridge will not forward frames in that particular VLAN (a common behavior for VLAN-aware switches), or the VLAN is created but is not configured to be bridged between a particular set of ports, resulting in two or more discontiguous domains.
Apart from this - I do not know
Best regards,
Peter
02-16-2013 07:04 PM
Hi Peter,
thanks for your help. I have the following up as below:
(1) The problem is mainly caused by configuration issue on the bridge. I agree with you that the link bridge might be misconfigured which in turn partitioned a VLAN.
(2) How do you understand the workd "link" in the context? If let you draw a topology, would the "link" actually another bridge interconnecting other bridges.
(3) If we changed the bridges here to switches, would the result the same?
thank you
02-18-2013 11:31 AM
Hi Steve,
(2) How do you understand the workd "link" in the context? If let you draw a topology, would the "link" actually another bridge interconnecting other bridges.
I really do not know. Can you perhaps post a bigger section of the document where you read this, or if it is a public document, can you post a URL to it?
(3) If we changed the bridges here to switches, would the result the same?
Yes - in fact, I was talking about switches.
Best regards,
Peter
02-18-2013 05:40 PM
Actually, I'm reading RFC 6325 page 17. Anyway, thanks a lot for your help, Peter.
02-18-2013 10:58 PM
Hi Steve,
Oh, I see. In that case, the RFC 6325 in Section 1.3 indicates:
In this document, the term "link", unless otherwise qualified, means "bridged LAN", that is to say, the combination of one or more [802.3] links with zero or more bridges, hubs, repeaters, or the like. The term "simple link" or the like is used indicate a point-to-point or multi-access link with no included bridges or RBridges.
Does this explain your question?
Best regards,
Peter
02-16-2013 10:35 AM
if you read sentence begining from end it says, if you configure vlan on a switch and a frame sent by one to a neighbor on that link might no arrive.
02-16-2013 07:08 PM
Hi mhnedirli,
sorry, I didn't get your points, do you have the same view as Peter?
thank you!
Discover and save your favorite ideas. Come back to expert answers, step-by-step guides, recent topics, and more.
New here? Get started with these tips. How to use Community New member guide