From: Leon1 (leon1@xxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Mar 02 2002 - 13:18:31 GMT-3
In order to ensure that Switch wont become Root bridge, IEEE document says
make the priority 0.
I think this is the best way to ensure that you will be compatible with
multi-vendor also.
Thanks
Khurram.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Ezerski" <jezerski@broadcom.com>
To: "'Przemyslaw Karwasiecki'" <karwas@ifxcorp.com>
Cc: "'alain faure'" <alainfaure@yahoo.fr>; "'Leigh Anne Chisholm'"
<lachisho@tnc.com>; "'Clark J'" <clark.j@163.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 1:32 PM
Subject: RE: a question on SPANTREE
> AH yes, I read the question wrong. He was attempting to make it so a
switch
> could NOT become root. My bad. So, to clear up confusion, what I wrote
is
> the explanation to make a switch the definitive root bridge. So sorry for
> the misread on my part.
>
> -Joe
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Przemyslaw Karwasiecki [mailto:karwas@ifxcorp.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 12:19 PM
> To: Joseph Ezerski
> Cc: 'alain faure'; 'Leigh Anne Chisholm'; 'Clark J';
> ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: a question on SPANTREE
>
>
> Joseph,
>
> This statement is taken vaebatim from CCO:
>
> "The switch with the highest bridge priority (the lowest numerical
> priority value) is elected as the root switch. If all switches are
> configured with the default priority (32768), the switch with the
> lowest MAC address in the Layer 2 network becomes the root switch"
>
> Here:
>
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/cat5000/rel_6_3/config/s
> pantree.htm#xtocid129753
> (beware wrap)
>
> According to this priority 0 will garantee that switch will
> become root, because it is lowest numerical priority value.
>
> I understand that I am missing something, as you sound
> very confident in your statement, which is contradictory
> to CCO. Can you please clarify a bit more?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Przemek
>
> On Fri, 2002-03-01 at 14:47, Joseph Ezerski wrote:
> > Alain, I am assuming that you only have one vlan? The command you
entered
> > here will set the spantree priority first to 0, then back to 65535 but
> only
> > for VLAN 1.
> >
> > Try this instead:
> >
> > set spantree priority 0 <vlan #>
> >
> > Do that for every vlan you have but only on the root bridge. Leave
every
> > other switch the default. Note that you stand a good chance of seeing a
> > major recovergence if you are entering that command on the switch that
is
> > not currently the root.
> >
> > That will work. I am 100 sure.
> >
> > Forget about root guard for now. Spantree Priority 0 protects you from
> > about 99.999 of anything else becoming the root.
> >
> > -Joe
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: alain faure [mailto:alainfaure@yahoo.fr]
> > Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 11:30 AM
> > To: jezerski@broadcom.com; 'Leigh Anne Chisholm'; 'Clark J';
> > ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: RE: a question on SPANTREE
> >
> >
> > hi,
> >
> > to solve the problem with another way i try :
> > - set spantree priority 0
> > - set spantree priority 65535
> > - set spantree guard root 4/28 (one port of my catalyst)
> >
> > Without success, any comments ?
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > --- Joseph Ezerski <jezerski@broadcom.com> a icrit : > If you want to
get
> > really advanced and you have bigger switches, like the
> > > Cat6509, look into the root guard feature.
> > >
> > > -Joe
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> > > Leigh Anne Chisholm
> > > Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 10:34 AM
> > > To: alain faure; Clark J; ccielab@groupstudy.com; clark.j@163.com
> > > Subject: RE: a question on SPANTREE
> > >
> > >
> > > 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 - 10:56:51 GMT-3