Switching

Hi,

When i ran ezsetup on my ex2200's they created the following config example below:

vlans {
    VLANNAME {
        vlan-id 50;
        interface {
            ge-0/0/0.0;
            ge-0/0/1.0;
            ge-0/0/2.0;
            ge-0/0/3.0;
        }
        l3-interface vlan.0
    }
}

However, when I use the j-web interface to assign ports to a specific vlan it creates the following config example:

interfaces {
    ge-0/0/0 {
        unit 0 {
            family ethernet-switching {
                port-mode access;
                vlan {
                    members VLANNAME;
                }
            }
        }
    }
}

both methods appear to work but I just want to know which one is 'correct' ?

The answer is....  both.

Both types of VLAN definition work equally well.  It's up to you which way you prefer.  Some people (like me) prefer to add VLAN memberships to ports, while others prefer to add ports to VLANs.  Both are correct, both work, but I wouldn't mix the two. Seems like a pretty good recipe for confusion.

It all boils down to how you like to work.  Do you find it more convenient to look at a port's config to see which VLANs it belongs to, or would you prefer to look at a VLAN's config to see what ports belong to it?  Of course, you can always look at "show ethernet-switching interfaces" or "show vlans" as well.

I always tell my customers, come up with a standard for how you prefer to handle this and go with it.

For access mode ports I configure it on port level. For trunk mode ports on vlan level. But as set before choose your on method and stick with it.

Thanks for the responses!

I think I'll go with the majority and configure the vlans are the port level.. it makes good sense that way and other vendors appear to share that same configuration philosophy.

My trunks are all using mvrp and I find that works well so far, so no worries about where to configure the vlan for those.

Hello.

The 3fives link posted is my website. Since I wrote that post, I've changed my stance on configuring VLANs.

All VLAN information should be configured under the vlan {} stanza. The reason for this is that VLANs are not interface configuration. Interface configuration (duplex, encapsulation, speed, etc) belong under interfaces{}, protocols like ospf, bgp, rstp etc belong under protocols {} and vlans belong under vlans {}. 

I would hardly say "the majority" does it at the port level. 

Also, keep in mind that just because "other vendors" do it at the interface level, doesn't mean its the best way to do it. Think of all the other things that "other vendors" do that aren't the best or most logical way. 

So, expanding on the notion all vlan configuration, access and trunk, standardize under the vlan stanzas, kindly elucidate how that would look. I grok the concept and sentiment (and as much as I am enjoying the Junos Enterprise Switching book, this "best-practice" stuff isn't really covered, at least as of p.398), I would be grateful to see what your stanza's might look like. Based on this thread, I've HOSED my (EBay bought) EX3200-24T's config, and am starting from scratch.

For instance, got my ge-0/0/0 lashed to a Cisco 2900XL (regrettably, at 8MB memory I can't change native-vlan) as a trunk. Then, ge-0/0/12, 22 and 23 are all access-ports, vlan 22. Port ge-0/0/11 loops back to the EX3200's management port (which I'd like to be within 10.10.10.0/24, along w/ Cisco management). Haven't quite got to logical units yet --read and re-read this thread. From 3Fives, I see the access-port stanzas clearly enough, can guess what the vlan trunk stuff'll look like, yet would love to see how you (or others reading this) might do . Bit of a religious discussion.

Speaking to management, in a perfect world the management vlan would be something OTHER than 1, but the 2900XL I have evidently can't be changed w/ only 8MB memory. My LAST config I disabled vlan 1 on the Cisco, and just did everything at vlan 22 (192.168.1.0/24), the trunk set to pass all vlans, and assigned addresses within that subnet to anything hanging off the access-ports, me0, and the Cisco's vlan 22 l3 interface. Bad arrangement. It all WORKED --everything could talk to everything else, including Internet-- but I'd like to hear your take on that/how you might do. I liked your 3Fives thread, and am interested in the change in sentiment on this forum thread as well.

Bleh.

After a day of MEF, NLAN, and IPVPN, my head is spinning. Hope all this made sense.

regards,

Eric Lecht