I apologize in advance if this question is too simple for the group, I just haven't had experience with this topic and am having trouble finding this exact situation with my Google-fu. I work for a consultancy where we usually send a small team to work at the customer's site. We bring our own network components and are usually isolated from the customer network. I got dubbed the "Network guy" just because I have been willing to take the task on, but it's not really my wheelhouse.
At the site where I am currently, the customer would like to connect our network to theirs to ease some analysis that we are doing. They are proposing that we connect our router to one of their larger switches. They have a ton of VLANs on that switch that segregates traffic for various different reasons and acts as a layer 2/3 device, routing between VLANs where it is necessary. They have given me a couple of snippets of their switch config (they don't want to share the whole thing, which is fine).
The snippets that they gave me are the definition of the configuration for the switch port and some of the VLAN definitions. They have established a /30 network on the port that will connect to our router and designated a router-interface on one of the VLANs that is configured on that interface. The plan is to make that switch port address the next hop for a set of static routes that I will set on my router that let me reach the networks on their side that we need to work with.
That's all fine and seems reasonable to me, but they also made the port a VLAN tagged interface for each of the VLANs that holds the networks that we need to reach. I think that's not right? Shouldn't that be an untagged interface, since it connects to a non-switch port on my router? I questioned them about it, and got a sort of gruff, "that's so you can get to our networks" type of response. I was just hoping for some feedback from the group before I go back to them since the customer rep is kinda difficult to work with.
Thanks!
No comments:
Post a Comment