Wired Intelligent Edge

Hello all,

I've started configuring Aruba 8320's running on TL.10.03.0090 as replacements for our current ProCurve/Provision switches. I now run into the issue that there apparently are "internal VLAN's" that are not usable on VLAN's I am currently using on the ProCurve/Provision switches. A quick search gave the thread below and the solution "On 8320: 1-4040 can be used for VLAN. 4041-4094 are reserved VLANs and can't be used for any purpose than what they are reserved for."

https://community.arubanetworks.com/t5/Wired-Intelligent-Edge-Campus/ArubaOS-CX-8320-VLAN-ID-4094/td-p/490216 

Sadly, we've been using VLAN's in the 4000-range for many years. Would it be possible to:

1. Reconfigure the internal VLAN range to some other range? (i.e. the 1000 range.)
2. Or is there any future updates planned to make this possible?

Thanks in advance!

Niels Mejan

University of Twente

If you upgrade to 10.5 major release, you can configure the range for reserved VLANs and keep the 4000 range for your usage.

Hello Vincent,

Thanks a bunch, I will definately try this out since upgrading the switch definately is a lot less of a hassle than reconfiguring a large part of our network.

Kind regards,

Niels Mejan,

University of Twente

Works like a charm! ^_^

Aruba8320(config)# system internal-vlan-range 1000-1099

Hi!

With AOS-CX 10.05 I was under the impression that the range of internally reserved VLAN IDs (4041-4094 <- 54 continuous VLAN IDs) could, at most, be relocated elsewhere using just other different 54 continuous IDs...say, as example, 1000-1053. At least that was my guess.

If I'm not wrong, why then to waste 100 VLAN IDs (1000-1099) when the default condition reserves just 54?

Was just an example or there were calculations/considerations behind a range of 100 reserved VLAN IDs?

OT Start

@Nelis: was the update from 10.03.0090 to 10.05.011 flawless? were you dealing with a VSX or with a standalone Aruba 8320? I'm planning exactly the same jump on our VSX.

OT End

Hello Parnassus,

The simple answer is "because we can and I didn't think it mattered." We can always change it back on the fly if we need to anyway.

The longer answer is because of old legacy pre-defined Cisco VLAN's in the low 1000-range. When we re-build our VLAN scheme 10 years ago we "reserved" the whole 1000-1099 range for specials like these, thus is not part of our VLAN scheme thus it matters not for us if I use 1000-1053 or 1000-1099 for the internal-VLAN reservation on the Aruba 8320 as we will never use those VLAN's ever on our network.

According to the documentation:

Configures the VLAN range reserved for internal use for route-only ports and LAGs. The internal VLAN range cannot include any VLANs that are already in use. If the number of internal VLANs is less than the number of route-only ports and LAGs, some ports will be blocked and unable to be used. When the internal VLAN range is modified, traffic on route-only ports and LAGs is briefly interrupted while they are moved to the new range. The no' form of this command sets the range to the default of 4041 to 4094.

The upgrade went fine as far as I can tell. I used a command-line download via TFTP then rebooted the switch manually. After 10 or so minutes it was back. We only use stand alone Aruba 8320's.

Yeah, I too know what documentation reports:

"Configures the VLAN range reserved for internal use for route-only ports and LAGs. The internal VLAN range cannot include any VLANs that are already in use. If the number of internal VLANs is less than the number of route-only ports and LAGs, some ports will be blocked and unable to be used. When the internal VLAN range is modified, traffic on route-only ports and LAGs is briefly interrupted while they are moved to the new range. The no' form of this command sets the range to the default of 4041 to 4094."

and that was the reason why I asked if behind the choice of 100 reserved VLAN IDs instead of 54 there were special calculations or considerations (I guessed you needed more than 54 for a valid reason).

It's OK.