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 at gmail.com> 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 at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >