From: Greg Parrish (gparrish@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Apr 08 2002 - 18:24:36 GMT-3
I just tried it on a switch and setting it to 0 made me change from not
being the root, to now being the root for the vlan.
Greg
Jason wrote:
> 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 - 10:58:00 GMT-3