we have a simple setup of RUT241 running RUT2M_R_00.07.14 and TSW212 running TSW2_R_00.01.05.1
On the switch we added a tagged VLAN ID 100 on all ports, and on the router there is Interface based VLANmgmt ID 100 configured as 802.1Q on eth0.1 and a LAN interface on the mgmt interface configured with 192.168.100.1/24. When we try to ping 192.168.100.2 which is a client connected to the switch with VLAN 100 configured, we see
ARP requests going out on the eth0.1 router interface
on the switch
received on the 192.168.100.2 client device and ARP response sent
the ARP response on the switch
no ARP response on RUT241 and thus no ping.
We tried to configure an interface on TSW212 and a we see similar results - no ARP reply received.
Apologies for the delay, and thank you for sharing your intended setup. If I understood it properly, I’ve mimicked your setup on my end using a RUTX (the difference being additional LAN ports, but the VLAN functionality is equivalent) paired with a TSW212 and achieved the configuration using a tag-based VLAN on the RUT.
In this setup, the TSW received its IP address from the RUT’s VLAN 100 DHCP pool, and the end devices connected to those ports were correctly communicating within the VLAN 100 subnet.
I hope this helps, and if you’d like, feel free to share your exact VLAN configuration details.
thanks for help. We tried this setup, but unfortunately it seems the functionality of Port Based VLAN setup is different on RUT241, because it doesn’t allow Untagged and Tagged on the same port.
Thank you for noticing this. I’ve tested the exact same setup with RUT241 and also came to this limit when configuring tagged VLAN. However, it can be worked around simply by:
On TSW, configuration remains as it is with a created tagged VLAN and interface (static or dynamic) for it. Note: if interface is selected to static make sure there’s no IP conflict between VLAN IPs on RUT and TSW interfaces:
thanks for your reply. This lead me to the option of having the VLAN 1 and 100 tagged on port LAN. It is not ideal, as now there is no option for untagged traffic on the LAN port. This means the TSW must be configured with VLAN 1 as tagged on the port, which means one has to create a “dummy” VLAN on the TSW and set the port where RUT is connected as untagged in this dummy VLAN (the TSW requires a port to be untagged in exactly one VLAN, which is expected)
Although this setup now works, it requires changes to the default VLAN 1 on the TSW side and a dummy VLAN. And the Interface based VLANs are useless.
I would still consider this as a bug worth fixing. It seems like this is intended to work with Interface based VLANs, as the packets are sent out correctly, only reception doesn’t work on RUT241.
