From: John Mistichelli (jmistichelli@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Feb 23 2002 - 09:10:11 GMT-3
I am not sure we have a clear picture of how you are wired. Is Uplinkfast conf
igured on the switch you expect to be the root bridge (and backup to the root)?
If so, its not designed for that. Uplinkfast is for access layer switches.
John
Rich <rmallory@enteract.com> wrote: Question(s):
Are the uplinks from the closet switches single connections to the 2 core
switches or are you using Etherchannel on the uplinks to each core switch?
How many VLAN's are being used in the closet switch? Are the root bridges
for the VLAN's placed on the core switches to enable spanning tree load
balancing? If not, which core is root for the VLAN you are testing from, and
does it matter which of the links drops? In other words does the problem
occur if the link which comes back up is connected to the root bridge?
Thanks,
Rich
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Annu Roopa
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 2:10 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Cc: annu_roopa@yahoo.com
Subject: OT:Uplinkfast issues
Group,
I have a issue with one of the setups hopefully
someone has come across this or has some ideas ?
My setup is as follows:
Firewall1 Firewall2
| |
| |
Cat6509(with CSM) Cat6509 (with CSM)
Primary Backup
| |
| <--Uplinkfast -->| Layer2
---- ----- conn
| |
|----------|
| Switch |
============
PC Hosts
My issue is when link to Cat6509 which is primary
(with CSM blade) fails the Uplinkfast fails over to
secondary and traffic goes thru Backup Cat6509 and
goes well.
The PROBLEM IS WHEN THE LINK TO OLD PRIMARY comes
back...upkink fast takes around 30 seconds and
meanwhile traffic in terms of flows is lost.
Is there a way to speed up this process in any way ?
Let me know the connection between access switch and
Cat6509 is Layer 2 and cannot be Layer 3 connection as
per requirements.
Thanks in advance for ur answers.
Annu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 20 2002 - 13:46:31 GMT-3