this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2025
48 points (96.2% liked)

Selfhosted

60426 readers
206 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Detailed Rules Post

  1. Be civil.

  2. No spam.

  3. Posts are to be related to self-hosting.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title.

  6. No trolling.

  7. Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
ruud@lemmy.world
Loki@lemmy.world
CannaVet@lemmy.world
devve@lemmy.world
ayyy@sh.itjust.works
curbstickle@anarchist.nexus
curbstickle_lw@lemmy.world
48
Basic networking/subnetting question. (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 1 year ago by marauding_gibberish142@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
65 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Sorry for being such a noob. My networking is not very strong, thought I'd ask the fine folks here.

Let's say I have a Linux box working as a router and a dumb switch (I.e. L2 only). I have 2 PCs that I would like to keep separated and not let them talk to each other.

Can I plug these two PCs into the switch, configure their interfaces with IPs from different subnets, and configure the relevant sub-interfaces and ACLs (to prevent inter-subnet communication through the router) on the Linux router?

What I'm asking is; do I really need VLANs? I do need to segregate networks but I do not trust the operating systems running on these switches which can do L3 routing.

If you have a better solution than what I described which can scale with the number of computers, please let me know. Unfortunately, networking below L3 is still fuzzy in my head.

Thanks!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] neidu3@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yes, but that's done on the switch. Basically VLAN tags are applied in one of two ways:

Untagged (sometimes called Access) is something you apply on a switch port. For example, if you assign a port to Untagged VLAN 32, anything connected to that port will only be able to see traffic assigned to VLAN 32.

Tagged (sometimesreferred to as Trunk), on the other hand, is for traffic that is already assigned a VLAN tag. For example Tagged 32 means that it will allow traffic that already has a VLAN tag of 32. It is possible to assign multiple VLANs to a Tagged port. Whatever is connected to that port will need to be able to talk to the associated VLAN(s).

In your particular case, the best practice would be to assign two ports (One for each host, obviously) to Untagged 32 (arbitrarily chosen number, any VLAN ID will do, as long as you're consistent), and all the other ports as Untagged to a different VLAN ID. That way the switch will effectively contain two segments that cannot talk to each other.

[–] marauding_gibberish142@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thank you so much for the explanation. I followed everything but:

Untagged (sometimes called Access) is something you apply on a switch port. For example, if you assign a port to Untagged VLAN 32, anything connected to that port will only be able to connect to port 32.

I couldn't really understand what you meant here. Did you mean VLAN 32 in the last line?

[–] neidu3@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Derp, yes. Corrected. VLAN numbers are obviously not related to port numbers in any way.