Is there a substitute for Cisco DTP technology from other vendors? And if so, which ones?

Didn't find anything on google.

  • Has any answer solved your question? Then please accept it or your question will keep popping up here forever. Please also consider voting for useful answers.
    – Zac67
    Commented Jun 24, 2023 at 19:00

3 Answers 3


An open-standard alternative is the Multiple VLAN Registration Protocol (MVRP), defined in IEEE 802.1Q. It replaced the GARP VLAN Registration Protocol (GVRP) in 2007.


Cisco DTP (Dynamic Trunking Protocol) is a Dynamically negotiated interface configuration management feature. It allows two Cisco switches to negotiate their interface status regarding VLAN tagging mode. If the ports on each switch that connect to each other are configured for either Trunk, Dynamic Auto, or Dynamic Desirable then the 2 ports will reconfigure for Trunk mode. Any other combination of interface configuration (Access, or No-negotiate) will result in the ports not configuring for Trunk mode and only non-VLAN-tagged traffic will pass the interface.

DTP is different from features on most other brands because the Cisco concept of a VLAN 'Trunk' interface is not standard terminology with all other brands.

For example, Aruba switches refer to an interface with all VLANs tagged as a 'Tagged' mode interface (what Cisco calls a Trunk mode interface). For another example, even though Meraki MS switches feature what they call a 'Trunk' mode on their ports by default, it only carries up to 1000 (1-1000 VLAN ID tags only by default) VLANs total so it requires special configuration to match the VLAN tagging that may be in use on a Cisco switch (say VLAN IDs 1, 200-900, 1200-3500, etc.).

Brocade/Ruckus switches refer to a port as 'Dual-mode' if it accepts both tagged and untagged (Cisco tagged and native VLAN) traffic. It is not called a Trunk port.

Some Dell switches use a configuration called 802.1q General Mode to equate to a Cisco Trunk mode interface.

Other brands have similar configuration foibles and standards that are different from what might be familiar to a Cisco user.

Because there is no standard nomenclature or configuration default or status for what Cisco calls a 'trunk port', there is no equivalent Dynamic Trunk Protocol. Other brands might have similar interface configuration negotiating protocols or interoperability management features, but I have not heard of any nor found examples of any that specifically relate to interface VLAN tagging management. They would probably be a more general centralized management and templating feature rather than specifically serving to configure the interface only for tagging/non-tagging frames for VLANs.

Cisco VTP is not the same thing as DTP. VTP is a VLAN management protocol that is designed to help manage the creation of VLAN configuration consistently across a network of connected switches and can help create or remove configuration of VLAN IDs across multiple switches that are configured to participate in the same VTP domain. VTP can also feature VLAN Pruning which can help dynamically remove VLAN implementation from switches where it is not used, such as disabling spanning-tree instances from switches that have no interfaces configured for the VLAN in question.

802.1ak or MVRP (and previously GARP-based GVRP) is an open standard based implementation of a similar feature set to help manage the creation/configuration of VLAN ID definitions across multiple switches that have MVRP enabled for their 802.1q trunk ports. This document covers more detail on interaction between VTP and MVRP and configuration examples:


Since DTP can result in the enabling of 802.1q Trunk interfaces, MVRP (or VTP) can be used in conjunction with DTP to enable the dynamic creation of VLAN configuration across those 802.1q Trunk mode interfaces but the enabling of the port as a Trunk mode interface is handled either by static configuration or by DTP independently from VTP or MVRP.

The common consensus I have seen around the IT industry is that dynamic VLAN configuration is generally undesirable because it can have unintended results. A good centralized configuration management solution and/or configuration documentation and careful configuration management is preferred even/especially on large networks.


No,it's proprietary and works only on Cisco

  • The OP's asking about a comparable technology, not a compatible one.
    – Zac67
    Commented Jun 27, 2023 at 14:26

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.