Welcome to TP-LINK Tech Support Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 40
  1. #1

    Unhappy Status LEDs on active ports always flashing synchronously | SOLVED

    Model : TL-SG108e

    Hardware Version : 2.0

    Firmware Version : 1.0.2 Build 20160526 Rel.34615

    ISP : N/A

    On my unmanaged switch the status LEDs flash apparently only when there is activity on their port. However, on my TL-SG108e which is set up to use 802.1q VLAN tags, all the active ports flash simultaneously so I can't see which ones are actually transmitting/receiving.

    Have I configured something incorrectly?
    Last edited by pleased; 01-10-2017 at 21:52. Reason: Added product info

  2. #2
    If all your ports are flashing synchronously, I believe your switch has "crashed" and going crazy with XMAs-lights style LEDs - If you run a speedtest through the switch, 99% chance your Xfer speed will be in the dump.

    Try this:
    - Delete all your VLANS ie. all back to VLAN1
    - Disable "Storm control" protection
    - Disable "Flow control"
    - (Note: "Reboot" seems of NO help to clear VLAN corruption!)

    Now your switch should be perfectly fast with no XMas lights, right?
    Rebuild your VLAN carefully one at the time without any membership overlap (Ports belong to one VLAN only, except for VLAN1 members)

    If you encounter the same problem again post your use case and VLAN definition.
    Owns many great TP-Link's gear including GbSwitch SG1024DE, Powerline AV200-AV1200, Routers N/AC... but the SG108EV2 switch is NOT one of them!

  3. #3

    Talking

    Thanks, glasser. Yes, with 802.1q VLAN, all connected ports are continuously flashing because I have a torrent client running on a server on one port. The switch allowed ~25 Mbps download speed through the internet modem and router; I have not run a speed test on the LAN alone.

    When I disable all VLAN modes, the status LEDs activate normally, that is the torrent client port and internet router ports flash continuously but the other connected ports flash only occasionally. If I use 802.1q mode with the only the Default_VLAN (1) and all ports' PVID set to 1, the LEDs also activate normally. After rebuilding the VLAN to my original configuration, the LEDs return to continual flashing (Flow Control and Storm Control have always been disabled.)

    I am not clear on your latter instruction, "Rebuild your VLAN carefully one at the time without any membership overlap", as the SG108e maintains all ports on the Default_VLAN. This is the VLAN definition I am using:

    802.1Q VLAN:
    VLAN 1, Default_VLAN: ports 1-8
    VLAN 2, Home: ports 1-6
    VLAN 3, Apartment ports 1, 7-8

    802.1Q PVID Setting:
    PVID 1: port 1
    PVID 2: ports 2-6
    PVID 3: ports 7-8

    Port 1 is connected to my router which routes to my cable modem. Port 2 is connected to my server with torrent client on it. The rest of the "Home" ports, 3-6 are connected to various laptops and a wireless access point.

    I can't see what I am doing wrong here.

    Thanks again.

  4. #4

    Unhappy

    After much experimentation with the VLAN mapping, it seems that the status LEDs of all connected ports blink when traffic goes between ports with different PVIDs. I can't think of an explanation for this except that it's a bug. I hope that traffic is not then being sent out on all connected ports as well!

  5. #5

    Talking

    Submitted ticket #291412: TL-SG108E 802.1Q VLAN mappings with overlapping VLANs causes all status LED's to flash

    When I use this switch with all VLAN modes disabled, the status lights flash independently, i.e. activity between a server and a router on two separate ports doesn't cause the LEDs on other ports flash simultaneously. However, when the 802.1q VLAN mode is enabled with overlapping VLANs (to segregate ports into two networks which both can talk over one port routed to the internet - ie. the two VLANs overlap on that port), the traffic between ports with different PVIDs (e.g. from a server to the internet router) causes the status LEDs of all connected ports to flash.

    Is this a hardware limitation or a firmware bug?





  6. #6
    Members R1D2 is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    1,142
    You did create a loop by assigning all ports to two VLANs with the setup outlined in #3 (ports 1 to 8 in VLAN 1).

    To share an Internet connection on port 1 with two VLANs 2 and 3, port 1 must be a member of VLAN 2 and 3, but ports in VLANs 2 and 3 may not be members of VLAN 1. Whats more, your router on port 1 must be able to receive and send VLAN-tagged packets in order to be able to communicate with devices in both VLANs 2 and 3. So port 1 must be a tagged port.

    See http://www.tp-link.com/us/faq-544.html for an example of two VLANs sharing a common Internet router. It uses two switches, but you can adapt this example to only one switch too.

  7. #7
    You will notice, R1D2, that your link recommends a "loop" for the VLAN configuration just like I have. In addition, all VLAN memberships for the router port are untagged. In addition, I don't think I had a connectivity issue with my configuration as I had internet connectivity on both Home and Apartment VLANs and they appeared to be isolated from one another (no ping response from known IP address on other VLAN.)

    If the PVID of my server port is the same as that of my router port, traffic between the two doesn't bung up the rest of the status LEDs. If it is different, it does. I can't see how you've explained this problem.
    Last edited by pleased; 01-04-2017 at 22:28. Reason: Punctuation

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by R1D2 View Post
    You did create a loop by assigning all ports to two VLANs with the setup outlined in #3 (ports 1 to 8 in VLAN 1).

    To share an Internet connection on port 1 with two VLANs 2 and 3, port 1 must be a member of VLAN 2 and 3, but ports in VLANs 2 and 3 may not be members of VLAN 1. Whats more, your router on port 1 must be able to receive and send VLAN-tagged packets in order to be able to communicate with devices in both VLANs 2 and 3. So port 1 must be a tagged port.

    See http://www.tp-link.com/us/faq-544.html for an example of two VLANs sharing a common Internet router. It uses two switches, but you can adapt this example to only one switch too.
    It's clear we don't have a common understanding on this tag-based VLAN question. May be we are onto something that will make this device work as expected...
    In the FAQ-544 example: they essentially create a VLAN1(1-9) duplicate called VLAN102(1-9) to share the Internet gateway via port 9... notice how their VLAN102(1-9) overlaps with all VLANS: VLAN100(1-3,9), VLAN101(1,4-9) and VLAN1(1-9) right?
    This overlap is exactly like in 'Pleased' VLAN definitions on post #3: looks 100% correct to me.

    Question:
    "your router on port_1 must be able to receive and send VLAN-tagged packets in order to be able to communicate with devices in both VLANs 2 and 3. So port 1 must be a tagged port."
    Q: What PVID/ VLAN definition would your port_1 have then not to overlap with any ports of VLAN2, VLAN3??

    it is correct that if port_1 frames come in preTagged as VLAN2, VLAN3 they will bypass the VLAN Untagged traffic definition set on port_1
    In the SG108E the "Tag/Untagged" option in the VLAN definition relates only to Egress ie. outgoing traffic. I believe that Tagged frame come in straight unfiltered to be matched by locally defined VLANs (such as VLAN102 being defined in the SG2216 secondary switch to share the Internet from SG2424 primary switch VLAN port_9).
    Owns many great TP-Link's gear including GbSwitch SG1024DE, Powerline AV200-AV1200, Routers N/AC... but the SG108EV2 switch is NOT one of them!

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by pleased View Post
    You will notice, R1D2, that your link recommends a "loop" for the VLAN configuration just like I have. In addition, all VLAN memberships for the router port are untagged. In addition, I don't think I had a connectivity issue with my configuration as I had internet connectivity on both Home and Apartment VLANs and they appeared to be isolated from one another (no ping response from known IP address on other VLAN.)

    If the PVID of my server port is the same as that of my router port, traffic between the two doesn't bung up the rest of the status LEDs. If it is different, it does. I can't see how you've explained this problem.
    Yeh, I think you are right. After more than 2 weeks of testing this SG108eV2, I understand the broken feature list ("QOS by Port", "Tag based .1Q VLAN", "Storm Control" and "Flow Control") make this device a paper weight I don't need.

    TP-Link already has a Version3 in the pipe as seen on their support site... that is if you care to debug their design by trials! TPLink routers are mostly great, unlike the chip vendor behind the 108EV2!!
    Last edited by glasser; 01-04-2017 at 22:47.
    Owns many great TP-Link's gear including GbSwitch SG1024DE, Powerline AV200-AV1200, Routers N/AC... but the SG108EV2 switch is NOT one of them!

  10. #10
    Members R1D2 is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    1,142
    In port-based VLANs assigning a port into more than one VLAN usually makes this port a trunk port, so it is not an access port anymore (no matter what it's PVID is). The TP-Link example in the mentioned FAQ uses access ports 2-3 in VLAN 100 and 4-8 in VLAN 101. By assigning port 9 into VLANs 100,101 and 102 it will become a trunk port, i.e. it requires tagged packets on input to be able to forward them into the destination VLAN. Just ignore the port 1 and the second switch in the example given in the FAQ, it's not important for the use case discussed here.

    Anyway, in order to access two separate VLANs through one cable over a trunk port, your connected device (Internet router) must be able to send/receive tagged packets.

    Just imagine you would use two cables to your Internet router, one from the switch's access port 1, another from access port 8. You would assign ports 1-3 to VLAN 2 (Home) and ports 4-8 to VLAN 3 (Apartment). Then you plug both cables from ports 1 and 8 into two LAN ports of your Internet router. Without separating this two LAN ports of the Internet router into two different subnets - one for Home, one for Apartment -, you would create a "loop" or more precisely, one big Home-Apartment-LAN out of two VLANs. Makes no sense to me. So, if you want to share a common resource between two VLANs you either would have to use two subnets on the Internet router and two cables to the switch's access ports or one cable to a trunk port using tagged packets.

    AFAIK there is no way with the TL-SG108E to connect two separate VLANs over one physical access port/cable with two or even one common subnet. It must be a trunk port to do so. If I'm wrong, pls correct me and give an example of a working setup, I would be glad to try it out.

    Of course there are alternatives such as VLAN-routing or multi-mode ports in more expensive switches, but - according to my knowledge - not in the TL-SG108E.
    Last edited by R1D2; 01-05-2017 at 00:26.

  11. #11
    Members R1D2 is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    1,142
    Quote Originally Posted by glasser View Post
    TP-Link already has a Version3 in the pipe as seen on their support site... that is if you care to debug their design by trials! TPLink routers are mostly great, unlike the chip vendor behind the 108EV2!!
    I'm not sure wether V3 will actually change anything except a new user interface with the new TP-Link logo.

    I first ordered a TL-SG108E and got V1 without a web UI, but with a "Configuration Uitlity" running on Windows only . Oh boy, I never ever used Windows in 40 years IT. I did read the whole manual before, but the German branch of TP-Link did by accident publish the V2 manual long time before the device was available. So I did send the switch back and asked TP-Link sales for V2, which was delivered more than a half year later. AFAIK it had the same features as V1, but a web UI - thanks TP-Link God . I also just returned a TL-SG108PE V1 with an old firmware version because of the same reason and now I'm waiting for the V2 replacement of this model.

    However, I use the two TL-SG108E and one TL-SG2008 only for simple trunking of several VLANs at my home and home-office and a T1600-24TS in the machine room for doing all fancy things in between (mostly learning to be able to sell this gear to my customers). The T1600 was affordable for my small budget and it can do a lot more such as VLAN routing and multi-nets NAT, which can help in sharing resources in different VLANs.

    If you could do this with a TL-SG108E - would be even better. But so far from my understanding and practical experience with this device, the TL-SG108 has only very limited features compared to the more expensive switches. That's not bad - a lot of people needs such a cheap switch, e.g. for VLAN-based Multi-SSID setup of WiFi gear.
    Last edited by R1D2; 01-05-2017 at 00:29.

  12. #12
    I understand the firmware is open source, however, repair of this problem may require new hardware (this is the new model of product promotion, no? Planned Insufficiency.)

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by R1D2 View Post
    By assigning port 9 into VLANs 100,101 and 102 it will become a trunk port, i.e. it requires tagged packets on input to be able to forward them into the destination VLAN. [...] in order to access two separate VLANs through one cable over a trunk port, your connected device (Internet router) must be able to send/receive tagged packets.
    Well, as I understand, the packets coming out of that switch and into the router are untagged; I am not sure what that implies for your requirement that the router return tagged packets. In any case, I had internet connectivity from both Apartment and Home without any configuration for my router to send tagged packets.

    I think a "loop" would occur if, say, my router repeated ARP packets sent into its single LAN port out the same port. It's not doing that, is it?

    Anyway, I have internet connectivity on ports with the same PVID as the router port's and those with (multiple) different PVIDs. I'm not sure there are no "side effects" of my current configuration, but isolation from the internet is not one of them and it does not appear the ports I intended to isolate are connecting through a "loop". I am eager for the explanation why my status LEDs are acting the way they do - especially if there is traffic put on all connected ports because the PVIDs of the ports I want to be communicating don't match.
    Last edited by pleased; 01-05-2017 at 00:51. Reason: Correct quote attribution

  14. #14
    Members R1D2 is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    1,142
    Quote Originally Posted by pleased View Post
    I think a "loop" would occur if, say, my router repeated ARP packets sent into its single LAN port out the same port. It's not doing that, is it?
    To answer, I would need to know little more such as subnets you are using.

    Anyway, I have internet connectivity on ports with the same PVID as the router port's and those with (multiple) different PVIDs.
    Of course, yes. Incoming packets without a tag are assigned to the default VLAN and every port is a member of it in your setup. Can you ping from a system in Home to a system in Apartment? If so, there is no isolation, this are no longer VLANs.

    What you try to do (ports 2-6 = Home, 7+8 = Apartment, port 1 in both, Home and Apartment and also in - let's call it - Internet, all ports 1-8 in Internet) is indeed possible - but not with TL-SG108E.

    It is called private VLANs or PVLANs - you have a primary VLAN (Internet) and two secondary VLANs (Home, Apartment). The ports in the secondary PVLANs can be 'community' or 'isolated'. 'Community' ports can reach each other (either Home or Apartment) and the 'promiscuous' router port (Internet), while 'isolated ports' can only talk to the 'promiscuous' port. The packets get tagged with the PVID, but the tags never go out to any port.

    See this article for more information: http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs...vateVLANs.html

    I'm not sure, but the more expensive TP-Link switches could probably handle PVLANs, too. But PVLANs have nothing to do with 802.1Q VLANs - they have been designed to connect a company's private network in distant offices with several VLANs over an isolated, big ISP-provided VLAN spanning public networks if I understand it correctly. Hence their name. AFAIK they put a tagged Ethernet frame into another tagged Ethernet frame, but I didn't elaborate more on this somewhat weird technique.

    I would suggest to use a classic 802.1Q trunk to achieve what you want with TL-SG108E. Should be possible with every Internet router, which provides 802.1Q trunks or at least two subnets on two LAN ports.
    Last edited by R1D2; 01-05-2017 at 01:59.

  15. #15
    You ask, R1D2, "Can you ping from a system in Home to a system in Apartment?" So far, the answer is no: "no ping response from known IP address on other VLAN".

    This network is cobbled together and my router does not have 802.1q trunks or even subnets.

    You seem to believe the network I have is the cause of this problem I have. I am eager to hear an explanation of this. The only thing I can think of so far is that, when the SG108e transfers a packet to my router "across PVIDs", it does something to the packet to cause the router to send a broadcast in response. I was hoping for a plausible explanation of thisbefore I launched into using Wireshark which would probably require a substantial investment of time. And the schematic understanding I have of what the SG108e is supposed to be doing here does not seem to match it's behavior. I am quite willing to correct my understanding.

    I pray a TP-Link oracle will have my answer ...


 

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Copyright 1996-2017 TP-LINK Technologies Co., Ltd. All rights reserved.