We have bought 3 of Linksys SRW248G4 sw.
But web interface is NOT working with IE8 (though it is said in Release notes, it works with IE5.5+). It works with IE5.5 to IE7 (though there are stilllsome bugs revealling, see below), but not with IE8. If the software gets updated at all the hosts in our LAN, we will not be able to configure the sw...
Error: Object expected
Msxml is installed (and is of the latest version). We have tested it with Windows server 2003 and IE8, with Windows XP and IE8... nothing helps (we have also disabled all the restrictions on active x). It just does not work.
The sw is completely unconfigurable in UNIX-only environment... as it relies at the M$ client side "technology"...
CLI functionality is very poor as it allows one to configure only some basic parameters (IP address, local users for auth). It does NOT allow to setup VLANs,*STP,any Security features, etc.
When trying to configure the sw using IE6-7, there is a bug showing up when we try to add one port to many VLANs ("VLAN to Ports" page) and press "Save". The port seems to be added to VLANs but the error message is instantly showing up which says that some error appeared, but it doesn't know the error ID or the reason. This is really annoying. =) :
Line No. Error Type Value Diagnostic
1 null Unknown value Might be missing parameters (join1) in page.
We like the sw, but it is so hard to work with it, not mentioning that we have to install M$ Windows to manage it... We'd like to see it working with IE8+ and Firefox (all 3Com and Allied Telesyn sw do!), and we'd like to see more functionality in CLI interface.
Message was edited by: satanovskyl
This is operating as intended. If the server NIC card software does not support 802.1q vlan tagging, then you can only put the card in one vlan. When a switch receives a frame without a vlan tag, it puts it in the vlan indicated by the PVID as you have observed, irregardless of the information at layer three.
The switch needs information at layer 2 that marks each vlan in a unique way, that is the dot1q encapsulations job. The native vlan frames are untagged, and that is what makes them unique compared to tagged frames.
If I am misunderstanding the problem, please explain what it is that I seem to be missing.
AFAIR, Allied Telesis switches support adding a port to MANY VLANs in "untagged mode". No problem here!
Why Linksys does not?
One more time: I have the server with NIC or some sort of software not supporting 802.1q VLAN tagging, it has got only one NIC and I want it to be in many VLANS.
It's obvious that this is a limitation of Linksys sw, the only question here is will it be corrected or not.
Well, you can make the NIC a member of may different networks (192.168.1.2/24, 192.168.2.2/24, and 192.168.3.2/24 for instance) with the right Operating system, and you can pass all these networks on the same VLAN (VLAN 182 for instance) and even have a router route for them from this single VLAN (182), back onto this sinlge VLAN (182), or even to other networks (192.168.4.x/24 or 172.16.x.x/16 for instance) not present on VLAN (182).
The only way I can even imagine getting IP addresses off of one VLAN, and then switched onto the correct VLAN would be with some form of DiffServ. And IIRC, DiffServ can only inject CoS or DSCP values, not 802.1q encapsulations, on our small business line of products.
The number for Allied Telesis is 1-800-835-5023 and sales can be reached by pressing 2. I called them now but they are not open. I will try again later and see how they do this. Our small business line of products however, do not.
I think there should be NO complications:
The sw just should allow to add one port to many VLANs with no 802.1q tagging required.
Nothing more. )
I've mentioned Allied Telesis just as an example:
we have old Surecom switches, they allow to do it too... 3Com ones, AFAIK, can also do this...
You can use "general" mode to add multiple untagged vlans to the switchport, but ingress traffic on that switchport will allwas be put in the VLAN that corresponds with the switchports PVID.
Sorry, NO comments on this.
U know, those switches are among the greatest paradoxes I've seen. Good tech specs, good idea, buggy web interface (not working with IE8 at the moment), terrible mistakes in documentation/comments in web interface (see "VLAN to Ports" instead of "VLANs to Port" or "The port belongs to VLANs in which all ports are tagged (except for an optional single native VLAN)." etc etc etc).
And there is another bug: when I set up a port to be Trunk, when after that I create a new VLAN, the port is not associated with it automagically: I have to add it MANUALLY! =) While by definition of the Trunk port type: it is assosiated with all but native VLANs in tagged mode automatically... another way, how does it differ from general mode if I HAVE to add newly created VLANs to it manually? (this is a rethorical question)
Are there any programmers in Cisco who can correct all this stuff?...
Is the worldclass networking company Cisco going to do anything about these problems in the near Future?
I've had this SLM2048 for two Weeks now, and I've just about had it! I am seriously annoyed with the whole config-interface it takes me about three times as long to configure anything since I have to reload pages and reset values all the time till the switch finally gets it. I had to reset to system defaults yesterday to get some ports back up which seemed to be locked out completly although I never touched security, VLAN or anything relevant.
Hey and I don't want to have to use IE all the time either, html is not only about IE, Hello there are other people out there in the World...
One more important problem of the current SRW* switches firmware:
When editing ACLs, one is not able to move around (change their places, eg.) rules in the ACL...
So, it is very incovenient, when you are not able to put some rule in the middle of existing ones, interchange rules' places... you are only allowed to ad a rule to
the end of the list or delete the rule... this is really bad.