[130131] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: tagged vs. untagged VLAN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brandon Kim)
Tue Sep 28 21:51:29 2010
From: Brandon Kim <brandon.kim@brandontek.com>
To: <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 21:51:10 -0400
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=bnvPGwaYB85RA=rz6DNd8BRucQSW155cOQkM=@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I'd think that going with two tagged VLAN's is the better route. You will t=
hen be forcing the customer
to adhere to the VLAN's that you have specified and reserved for them.
It's also a security advantage because if you go with untagged=2C who knows=
if someone might be able
to vlan hop/double tag their way into someone elses network....
> Date: Tue=2C 28 Sep 2010 21:27:32 -0400
> Subject: tagged vs. untagged VLAN
> From: zeusdadog@gmail.com
> To: nanog@nanog.org
>=20
> In a SP environment=2C you need to hand off two VLANs to a customer=2C is
> there any advantage or disadvantage in doing the following two setups?
>=20
> - One untagged and one tagged VLAN
> - Two tagged VLAN and no untagged VLAN
>=20
> I can't think of anything other than some equipment may not let you
> have no untagged VLAN. But it's bugging me that something could go
> wrong by not having untagged native VLAN that I can't think of.
>=20
=
