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!
Find answers to your questions by entering keywords or phrases in the Search bar above. New here? Use these resources to familiarize yourself with the community: