Gordon, thanks!
What sort of security implications did you have in mind? Just curious.
Boris.
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Gordon Messmer <gordon.messmer@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> On 01/25/2015 04:20 PM, Boris Epstein wrote:
>
>> I have resolved this, finally. The problem was that I configured VLAN 48
>> as
>> the native VLAN on the trunk port.That was a mistake as apparently the
>> native VLAN is the one where Cisco does not bother to tag packets.
>>
>
> That's not a mistake, per se. Having vlan 48 as the native vlan just
> means that you'd want 192.168.48.100 on eth0 instead of eth0.48.
>
> For now I set the native VLAN to VLAN 1 and that works.
>>
>
> As long as you aren't concerned about the security implications of that
> host having access to vlan 1, that seems pretty reasonable. The system
> will get some extra broadcast traffic, but the ethernet card will probably
> filter those out so that they don't have to be processed.
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
