[130135] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: tagged vs. untagged VLAN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Dib)
Wed Sep 29 00:15:39 2010
From: "Daniel Dib" <daniel.dib@reaper.nu>
To: "'Jay Nakamura'" <zeusdadog@gmail.com>,
"'NANOG'" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=bnvPGwaYB85RA=rz6DNd8BRucQSW155cOQkM=@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 06:15:23 +0200
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Nakamura [mailto:zeusdadog@gmail.com]
Sent: den 29 september 2010 03:28
To: NANOG
Subject: tagged vs. untagged VLAN
>In a SP environment, you need to hand off two VLANs to a customer, is
>there any advantage or disadvantage in doing the following two setups?
>
>- One untagged and one tagged VLAN
>- Two tagged VLAN and no untagged VLAN
>
>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.
I would go with tagged for both VLANs. If you can't tag the native in your
equipment create a dummy VLAN and use it as native on the link and all VLANs
will be tagged. If you know the customer will be using more VLANs later on
Q-in-Q might be a good solution or you will have to transport a lot of VLANs
in your network and they might collide with other customers etc.
/Daniel
