NETGRAPH- bridge vlans using netgraph help

[Julian Elischer]

On 1/5/18 11:16 pm, Freddie Cash wrote:
> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 6:08 AM, Julian Elischer <julian at freebsd.org 
> <mailto:julian at freebsd.org>>wrote:
>
>     On 1/5/18 2:08 am, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
>
>         01.05.2018 1:03, Freddie Cash wrote:
>
>             On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Eugene Grosbein
>             <eugen at grosbein.net <mailto:eugen at grosbein.net>
>             <mailto:eugen at grosbein.net
>             <mailto:eugen at grosbein.net>>>wrote:
>
>                  > What the OP is trying to do is have PC1 send
>             untagged packets to igb0 on FreeBSD which is configured
>             for tagged vlan 5.
>                  > Then bridge the packets to igb1 which is also
>             configured for tagged vlan 5.  Then send the packets
>             out, untagged, to PC2.
>
>                  Why would one want to "configure igb0 for tagged
>             vlan 5" when igb0 supposed to receive untagged frames?
>                  This does not make any sense. One should just
>             bridge igb0 as is, without creation vlan on it and
>             problem's solved.
>
>             ​Yes, agree.  What the OP wants to do can't be done. :)​
>
>         Perhaps, you missed a message from him when he states that
>         configuration style does no matter for him really.
>         So, what he wants can be done, just using different style.
>
>
>     a picture would do wonders to understand what he wants
>     ​.
>
>
> ​A FreeBSD system with multiple NICs, with separate vlans internally 
> to separate untagged traffic between PCs.​
>
> https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/bridge-with-vlans-not-working.65592/
>
> ​​https://forums.freebsd.org/attachments/capture-png.4744/
>
> ​https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/bridge-with-vlans-not-working.65592/#lg=post-385584&slide=0
>
> ​The "easy" solution is to just bridge together the interfaces you 
> want to be part of the same "virtual lan", thus allowing traffic 
> between those stations only.  Want PC1 and PC2 to be part of one 
> vlan?  Then bridge together igb0 and igb1.  Want PC3, connected to 
> igb2, and PC4, connected to igb3, to be part of a separate "virtual 
> lan"?  Then create a separate bridge between igb2 and igb3. No vlan 
> tags required anywhere.

ok so does he want to have those vlans terminated at his box or just 
pass them through?
and if they are untagged,  why is it being called a vlan?
untagged vlan is what we call "ethernet".

if it's untagged then only the internal state of the switches decides 
which "virtual network" it is on..



>
> But, the OP (in the forum thread and here) keeps getting hung up on 
> "needing" vlan tags on the NICs, trying to treat the FreeBSD box 
> like a switch with hybrid ports and PVIDs set on the ports.
>
> -- 
> Freddie Cash
> fjwcash at gmail.com <mailto:fjwcash at gmail.com>