From: Church, Chuck (cchurch@xxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Oct 22 2001 - 12:17:03 GMT-3
Joe,
I think the issue is if two switches are servers, and they become
physically seperated. If changes are made to both while they're mutually
unreachable, the one that had the most changes will have a bigger revision
number, and overwrite the other one when they can reach each other again.
It's best to have only 1 or 2 servers in a production envirionment, from
what I've seen.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Joe Freeman
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 10:39 AM
To: Ron Royston
Cc: fd200@bellatlantic.net; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: OT:Design Issue
In a lab environment, it might be okay to have all the switches set to
server,
however in production be very careful about that, especially if you have a
lot
of VLANs in your network.
The reason is that VTP uses VTP table revision numbers. I don't remember the
exact details, but I know it is possible to have a situation where a VLAN is
deleted on one switch, and gets deleted from the whole network because of
VTP.
This problem can go further... it is possible for a new switch to be added
to
the VTP domain in such a way that it sends an empty table revision to the
rest
of the network, wiping out the VLAN config across all VTP members.
Anyway, just be careful and lab it out (design, and implementation
processes)
before doing it with a production network...
Joe Freeman, CCNP-VA/CCDP
Ron Royston wrote:
> I believe what you wish to do is layer2 load balancing using path
> manipulation via STP. This is done by manually setting the root bridge in
> the STP configuration per VLAN.
>
> VTP allows a switch to be a client, server, or transparent. VTP servers
can
> create, modify, or delete VLANs, clients operate the same as servers but
> cannot create, modify, or delete VLANs, transparent switches do not
> participate in VTP, but can pass on VTP advertisements. I have seen VTP
> configured many ways in the field. I suggest that for your lab, set them
> all to server, that way you can create a vlan, name it, and the other
> switches in the same VTP domain learn of the VLAN dynamically.
>
> >From: "Fred" <fd200@bellatlantic.net>
> >Reply-To: "Fred" <fd200@bellatlantic.net>
> >To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> >Subject: OT:Design Issue
> >Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 22:39:40 -0400
> >
> >I have the following issue:
> >
> >c1, and c2 is core sw, 6509 and sw# is 4000 sw
> >(c1)----------(c2)
> > \ /
> > \ /
> > \ /
> > \ /
> > (sw#)
> >
> >I have 10 vlan, 21-30, any even vlan # go to c1 and old vlan# go to c2
and
> >in
> >case any uplink to one core fail, I will be able to take an alternate
path.
> >My question is how do I go about setting up the VTP domain, c1 and c2
been
> >the
> >server with different VTP domain or c1 been the server and everyone else
> >been
> >the client??? I don't want to manual setting up each 4000 with vlan
info,
> >it
> >should learn it by the core sw.
> >
> >Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 20 2002 - 22:33:23 GMT-3