Andrew and Dennis are spot on.
Their conclusions about your server being connected to an access port and
not a trunk port would be my conclusion as well.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn <
dennisml@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Boris,
> what I'd like to know is the actual VLAN configuration of the switch
> port (link-type and tagged and untagged VLANs). When I look at the
> switchport coniguration here I get (among other things):
>
> ...
> Port link-type: trunk
> Tagged VLAN ID : 8, 1624
> Untagged VLAN ID : 10
> ...
>
> Here is my suspicion:
> Your ports have an access link-type with an untagged VLAN ID of 48. That
> would explain why the moment you configure an IP from that VLAN on eth0
> you get connectivity because then the packets the Linux box sends are
> untagged as the switch would expect them to be. If you only put an
> address on eth0.48 then the packets get tagged by Linux but if the
> switch port is not configured to receive the packets for VLAN 48 as
> tagged then it will simply drop these packets and you will not get
> connectivity.
>
Additionally, the switch should gripe about 802.1q BPDUs.
Check the in-memory system log (or syslog server if you have configured
that).
show logging | i 1Q
Example:
1w1d: %SPANTREE-2-RECV_1Q_NON_TRUNK:
Received 802.1Q BPDU on non trunk FastEthernet0/2 on vlan 100.
>
> So getting the actual VLAN config of the switch port would help to
> determine if the switch actually expects to receive the packets the way
> you send them from the Linux box.
>
>
+1
Let's see the config for the switch port your server is connected to.
--
---~~.~~---
Mike
// SilverTip257 //
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
