Hi again Peter, I have got to the bottom of the problem. Thanks very much for your advice. The problem was not actually with my bridge - to include vlan 1 i simple created eth0.1 using vconfig and added it to the bridge. The problem lies with the trunk port I am connecting to. This is setup to trunk all vlans. On closer inspection however into how 802.1Q works, the native vlan on a trunk port is not actually tagged. When i made the native vlan a vlan other than 1, I could see all the traffic from vlan 1 in by bridge, because it was now arriving tagged. I'm using a Cisco 2950 and unfortunately it would seem there is no way to make it tag the traffic on the native vlan, this can however be done with other Cisco models. Many thanks Piccalo --- Peter Stuge <stuge-vlan@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 02:48:26PM +0100, liam sharp > wrote: > > Thanks for the swift response, much appreciated. > > Welcome! :) > > > > I have tried this several times, and again since > reading > > your email. This does work in that vlan 1 gets > > including in the bridge. However it seems to have > the > > effect of disabling traffic from any of the the > vlan > > interfaces, eth0.x. > > What did you try, exactly? I suggest trying the br1 > option if > you haven't already, it might work better than just > adding eth0 > to br0. > > I'm guessing your switch gets confused if/when it > sees the eth0 > MAC address inside the bridge. Perhaps "hiding" it > inside a > separate VLAN works better. > > You could also try setting made-up MAC addresses on > the various > (VLAN) interfaces. > > > //Peter > _______________________________________________ > Vlan mailing list > Vlan@xxxxxxxxxxxx > http://www.lanforge.com/mailman/listinfo/vlan > ___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
