3 ports required for double tagging? Seriously?

[troy]

Some 4 years ago, I asked about Q-in-Q / Double Tagging. I was disappointed with the response, but I moved on and gave up the idea of transporting multiple VLANs over our transport circuit.

This year, push comes to shove. I MUST transport 2 additional VLANs, and the only solution I've been able to come up with, is to burn 3 ports per device.

Port 8 = Untagged into VLAN 6
Port 9 = Tagged for VLAN 6
Port 10 = Double Tagged for VLAN 501 (outter tag)

Then put a jumper between ports 9 and 10.

Is this really the only solution? Surely there's got to be a way to configure the switch chip to add 2 tags on ingress?

[Stephen]

Is this an issue presently with 1.5.6?

[troy]

Apparently so? I can't seem to figure out any other way to apply two tags at ingress.

IMO, if the SOC doesn't support double tagging at ingress, then so be it. However, if it does (and I suspect it does), then this should be pretty easy to implement by selecting U for the inner tag and D for the outer tag on the same interface.

As it is, I'm probably going to hang a RB450G off the Netonix to take care of the first tag. I'm really not thrilled at adding another point of failure, but we do what we gotta do.

[mike99]

QinQ feature was implemented as a feature request to do L2VPN and currently support only 1:any.

Some feature currently not support can be work around by using multiple port like vlan translate, 1:1 tagging or like in your case, dual tagging.