From: alain faure (alainfaure@xxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Mar 01 2002 - 15:43:48 GMT-3
Well,
I looked at it and i can see there is two parameters to set this up:
- bridge ID priority
- bridge ID mac address of the bridge (as a tie breaker for an equal priority)
If you put the bridge with the higher priority value. And somebody come with
the same idea but with a higher mac address, the first bridge will be root.
is it correct ?
--- Leigh Anne Chisholm <lachisho@tnc.com> a icrit : > That's a drastic
response to what is actually a simple problem. In
> implementing that solution, you're creating the potential for problems well
> beyond those that you want to resolve. Spanning Tree has a simple priority
> system that's easy to manipulate that doesn't have the implications of your
> solution.
>
> Check the CCNA curriculum for information on how to configure a switch so
> that
> it can't become the root switch in any given VLAN.
>
>
> -- Leigh Anne
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> alain faure
> Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 11:23 AM
> To: Clark J; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: a question on SPANTREE
>
>
> hi,
>
> that's interresting question, and we have a long debate on this with some of
> my
> friends about one of our customer site.
>
> for me, i think the better way (but they don't agree with me) is to disable
> spanning tree on the VLAN for the switch you don't want they become root ?
> What
> do you think about ?
>
> best regards
>
>
> --- Clark J <clark.j@163.com> a icrit : > Dear CCIEs and Near CCIEs,
> > How to configure a switch so that it can't become the root switch in VLAN
> A
> > ?
> > Best regards,
> > Clarke J
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:56:50 GMT-3