NETGRAPH- bridge vlans using netgraph help

[Abdullah Tariq]

>
> a picture would do wonders to understand what he wants.


 Apologies for being AWOL
 Attaching an image link: https://ibb.co/nt1s4S

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 8:39 PM, Julian Elischer <julian at freebsd.org> wrote:

> 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>
> 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>>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
>
>
>