Guest User!

You are not Sophos Staff.

Thread Info
  • State Verified Answer
  • +1 person also asked this people also asked this
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 4 replies
  • Subscribers 28 subscribers
  • Views 779 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Suggested
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Why isn't it possible to delete the net settings from the base interface without deleting everything below this one (Vlan)?

K-M

Someone has a hint:

I can't remove the network settings from a base interface on which Vlans are configured. At first I thought this configuration is not possible, but it is possible to configure it like this.

To make it clear to images with the different configs.

Configured by mistake:

How it should be:

If I do the same settings on the base interface like in the image below EVERY setting below this interface (Vlan etc.) is DROPPED. Yeap, there is a note for it and I know it (therefore I did a backup before testing ;) ). But that doesn't answer the question why it is not possible to change that afterwards as the configuration itself is possible like this. What has the base interface untagged and its IP configuration to do with the vlan tagged interface on that port?



This thread was automatically locked due to age.
  • +1

    Hi  Prior to V17 with SF OS, dummy IP on parent interface was mandatory configuration before adding VLAN over that parent interface. Later on, with V17.x to avoid unnecessary configuration on the parent interface, supportability was added to configure VLAN on an unbound (unbinded) interface however as per the current working of OS unbinding parent interface will remove/delete all VLAN configured on that parent Interface.

    Regards,

    Vishal Ranpariya
    Technical Account Manager | Sophos Technical Support
    Sophos Support Videos | Knowledge Base  |  @SophosSupport | Sign up for SMS Alerts |
    If a post solves your question use the 'This helped me' link.

  • 0 in reply to Vishal_R

    In my oppionion this is like Sophos handles many of that "problems". You just tell that this is not working elsewhile this is happening in reality and at customers side. A real support and customer experience would be: yes we know this problem, we have it in the roadmap, will be implemented within the next two releases because it simply makes sense as it happens out in the wild.

  • 0 in reply to K-M

    There is a point that has been missed, originally XG only worked with L3 VLANs which required an IP address on the physical interface.  A couple of releases ago the VLAN type was upgrades to work with L2 which does not need an IP on the physical interface.

    Ian

    XG115W - v19.5.1 mr-1 - Home

    If a post solves your question please use the 'Verify Answer' button.

  • 0 in reply to rfcat_vk

    Thanks for this addition, I had that in mind that there was a change.

    Now I remember this is why we have an IP on some of our older LAGs on the untagged interface. I was caught by surprise that this works now on a newer one. Great, so thanks Sophos but the next step would be to allow the IP configuration from the interface to delete that unnecessary IPs. It was the right way but it is not gone to the end. So just help us to finalize this change in the OS and everything is fine. But Sophos is often reluctant of this kind of proposals even if they are good (no need to look in sophos ideas) and halfway implemented already.

Share Feedback
×

Submitted a Tech Support Case lately from the Support Portal?