Do all vlan exits need a pvid?

[trevormcooper]

i have my pi 4 running a few vlans, and all tagged to my edgerouter x, is this config correct on the ER-X, or should i remove the * for primary vlan, from vlan 20 and 30?

this is the network file for it

root@OpenWrt:~# cat /etc/config/network

config interface 'loopback'
        option device 'lo'
        option proto 'static'
        option ipaddr '127.0.0.1'
        option netmask '255.0.0.0'

config globals 'globals'
        option ula_prefix 'fd3c:d00b:4819::/48'
        option packet_steering '1'

config device
        option name 'br-lan'
        option type 'bridge'
        list ports 'eth0'
        list ports 'eth1'
        list ports 'eth2'
        list ports 'eth3'
        list ports 'eth4'
        option bridge_empty '1'

config interface 'vlan10'
        option device 'br-lan.10'
        option proto 'static'
        option ipaddr '192.168.10.2'
        option netmask '255.255.255.0'

config interface 'vlan20'
        option device 'br-lan.20'
        option proto 'none'

config interface 'vlan30'
        option device 'br-lan.30'
        option proto 'none'

config bridge-vlan
        option device 'br-lan'
        option vlan '10'
        list ports 'eth0:t'
        list ports 'eth1:u*'
        list ports 'eth2:u*'

config bridge-vlan
        option device 'br-lan'
        option vlan '20'
        list ports 'eth0:t'
        list ports 'eth3:u*'

config bridge-vlan
        option device 'br-lan'
        option vlan '30'
        list ports 'eth0:t'
        list ports 'eth4:u*'

[psherman]

If the intent is to have those ports behave as access ports (i.e. 'normal' ethernet ports for non-vlan aware devices to connect)...

The truth is that I cannot find a definitive source that describes the difference between the different methods of setting a port as untagged... so eth4 in this example:

config bridge-vlan
        option device 'br-lan'
        option vlan '30'
        list ports 'eth0:t'
        list ports 'eth4:u*'

using the eth4 line, it is possible to define in any one of these three ways:

        list ports 'eth4:u*'
-- vs --
        list ports 'eth4:u'
-- vs --
        list ports 'eth4'

While I haven't seen anything that says that * is absolutely required, or even technically the u, but if a VLAN is going to be used untagged (and there should only be max 1 untagged network per port), I am of the opinion that it makes the most sense to make it unequivical and explicit :u*

So with that contexdt, yes, the designation should be :u*.... at least as far as I am aware. This guarantees that all egress traffic for that VLAN will be untagged and that all untagged ingress traffic on that port will be properly associated with the same VLAN.