[cisco-voip] phones working on a dumb switch with voice/data vlans switched properly

[Dave Goodwin]

Not necessarily. Unmanaged switches that do not support 802.1q will often
just forward frames as is, tags and all, and only operate on the other
parts of the L2 header they pay attention to (source/destination address).
I have also seen unmanaged switches that did not claim support for 802.1q
and ATE my tags.

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 6:16 PM Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca> wrote:

>
> Ok. I hear ya. But wouldn’t the switch need to support 802.1q to support
> those tagged packets?
>
> This switch didn’t specify that it supported 802.1q.
>
>
>
> *-sent from mobile device-*
>
>
> *Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.* | Senior Analyst
>
> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>
> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
> N1G 2W1
>
> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 <519-824-4120;56354> | lelio at uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs | @UofGCCS on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook
>
>
>
> [image: University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>
> On Oct 3, 2018, at 5:47 PM, Dave Goodwin <dave.goodwin at december.net>
> wrote:
>
> I haven't really tried the kind of thing you described in quite a long
> time. But I assume the reason the phone gets an IP address is because the
> CDP VVLAN information is being successfully sent through the unmanaged
> non-Cisco switch so the phone actually sees it. The phone learns its VVLAN
> ID, so starts tagging all its frames and therefore gets an IP from the
> VVLAN. The other devices plugged into the switch (or behind the phone)
> don't normally need to tag, so the frames are coming through up to the
> Cisco switch untagged and are therefore in the native/access VLAN on the
> port and getting one of those IPs.
>
> So I guess that unmanaged switch passes any CDP through to all ports, and
> also passes any tagged traffic through unaltered.
>
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 5:17 PM Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>> OK - I'm probably showing my ignorance here, but I was quite surprised to
>> find out that plugging in a dumb Dlink DES-105 switch into our cisco switch
>> with access layer programming, so data vlan and voice vlan, extended things
>> such that when a phone is plugged in, it got an IP address on the voice
>> vlan, and plugging a non-phone device got an ip address on the data vlan
>> and then plugging a similar device into the back of the phone also got an
>> ip address on the data vlan. We plugged in multiple phones as well. All
>> worked fine. *phones powered by brick*
>>
>> I can appreciate a passthrough device, I've used them before as ethernet
>> extenders. By what I'm not understanding is how traffic is being classed
>> properly through to this dumb switch.
>>
>> We're using a new 9300 series switch, but I'm not sure that would make a
>> difference.
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A. | Senior Analyst
>> Computing and Communications Services | University of Guelph
>> Room 037 Animal Science & Nutrition Bldg | 50 Stone Rd E | Guelph, ON |
>> N1G 2W1
>> 519-824-4120 Ext. 56354 | lelio at uoguelph.ca<mailto:lelio at uoguelph.ca>
>>
>> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs<http://www.uoguelph.ca/ccs> | @UofGCCS on Instagram,
>> Twitter and Facebook
>>
>> [University of Guelph Cornerstone with Improve Life tagline]
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20181003/08c3a70d/attachment.html>