1. By using MikroTik bridging - it is simple, but the trunk must not have a native vlan - all should be tagged. And - the worst part - it consumes CPU and the bandwidth will be low - wasting the gigabit ports. Then:
/interface vlan add name=ether1vlan10 interface=ether1 vlan-id=10
/interface bridge add name=vlan10
/interface bridge port add bridge=vlan10 interface=ether1vlan10
/interface bridge port add bridge=vlan10 interface=ether2
/interface vlan add name=ether1vlan11 interface=ether1 vlan-id=11
/interface bridge add name=vlan11
/interface bridge port add bridge=vlan10 interface=ether1vlan11
/interface bridge port add bridge=vlan10 interface=ether3
/ip address add address=192.168.10.10/24 interface=vlan10
/ip route add gateway=192.168.10.254
The only difference is that both vlans are tagged on the trunk link.
2. I wish I had a 750GL to play with... See http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Sw ... p_Features
- I think that Atheros8327 switch chip in 750GL is better than 8316 - and will allow you to do everything... And using it - you could have the trunk working without using CPU (with wire speed)
. See the example on wiki - and if You would like to have a native vlan on the trunk link - you should modify it a bit (not to tag certain frames).
Having a router IP configured in the vlan could be more problematic (setting copy-to-cpu in proper "rules", I think...) - so I can't help with this without having a playground to test
. But I think it would be the best solution when configured properly.
If you don't want to use a Cisco switch you can use an RB250GS, which is also a switch. I definitely wouldn't use two routers. You'd have to bridge things in software, which is just ugly.
I think that's why MikroTik makes routerboards with those funny switching chips - not to bridge in software, and not to need another device