From: Ahmed Mamoor Amimi (mamoor@xxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Apr 07 2002 - 00:37:47 GMT-3
good one..... <grin>
-Mamoor
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim O'Brien <tobrien@cinci.rr.com>
To: <tsabry@slb.com>; 'Jason' <jgraun@attbi.com>; 'Bob Sinclair'
<bsin@erols.com>; 'Larry Whitfill' <whitfill@cox.net>
Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 7:22 AM
Subject: Re: Lab Tomorrow! Need Help
> Sure, it definitely has drawbacks, but remember that the lab is not real
> life.. you are there to "meet the requirements". Don't overthink things,
> just do what is asked...
>
> Tim
> CCIE 9015
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tarek Sabry" <tsabry@houston.sns.slb.com>
> To: "'Tim O'Brien'" <tobrien@cinci.rr.com>; "'Jason'" <jgraun@attbi.com>;
> "'Bob Sinclair'" <bsin@erols.com>; "'Larry Whitfill'" <whitfill@cox.net>
> Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 9:54 PM
> Subject: RE: Lab Tomorrow! Need Help
>
>
> Tim
>
> But doesn't turning it off has its own drawbacks???
>
> Tarek
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> Tim O'Brien
> Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 8:27 PM
> To: Jason; 'Bob Sinclair'; 'Larry Whitfill'
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: Lab Tomorrow! Need Help
>
>
> A Priority of 0 is considered better (higher priority) than 1 and will
most
> likely take over root priority...
>
> To give a switch the "worst" possible chance of becoming root, set
priority
> to 65535 for that vlan...
>
> To "ensure" that the switch "never" becomes root, turn off spanning tree
for
> that vlan....
>
> Just my thoughts..
>
> Tim
> CCIE 9015
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> Jason
> Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 7:53 PM
> To: 'Bob Sinclair'; 'Larry Whitfill'
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: Lab Tomorrow! Need Help
>
>
> That might work but if another switch gets added to the STP domain and
> your switch has a lower mac-address then it will become the root bridge
> assuming that the priority is 65535. I thought I read somewhere that
> using 0 will make sure that it will never become a root bridge.
>
> Jason
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Bob Sinclair
> Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 5:04 PM
> To: Larry Whitfill
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: Lab Tomorrow! Need Help
>
> Larry,
>
> I would suggest making the bridge priority 65535, the highest possible
> value.
>
> Good luck!
>
> -Bob
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Larry Whitfill" <whitfill@cox.net>
> To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 5:43 PM
> Subject: Lab Tomorrow! Need Help
>
>
> > Hello fellow CCIE waqnnabes and accomplished CCIEs!
> >
> > I'm sittingin my hotel 13 hours from ground zero and needed some
> > clarification and help.
> >
> > 1. When one wants to ensure that his switch does not become root under
> any
> > circumstance does he set the bridge priority to 0, does he set the
> priority
> > to the highest possible value, or does he do someting entirely
> different.
> > This has been kicked around quite a bit, but I never found a
> difinitive
> > answer here or on CCO, books, etc., and don't have two CATs to test.
> >
> > 2. When using DLSW+ peer-on-demand, do I also have to configure a
> border
> > peer, use the promiscuous keyword, both or neither?
> >
> > Thanks in advance!
> >
> > Larry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:57:59 GMT-3