From: Craig Columbus (Craig.Columbus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Apr 09 2002 - 14:17:07 GMT-3
You're absolutely correct Dave. However, it DOES mean that they probably
chose the correct "lab answer" when presented with the problem in the lab.
Craig
At 12:00 PM 4/9/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> Though flattering to Tim and others, having passed the lab by NO means
>makes one an unquestionable authority. Trust me I know this for a fact
>:)
>
> learning EVERYday
>
> Dave
>
>Raymond Gan wrote:
> >
> > I would take Tim's advice. He passed the lab and has his number. Period.
> > End of story.
> >
> > >From: "Larson, Chris (Contractor)" <Chris.Larson@ed.gov>
> > >Reply-To: "Larson, Chris (Contractor)" <Chris.Larson@ed.gov>
> > >To: "'dwhitley@dynis.com'" <dwhitley@dynis.com>, ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > >Subject: RE: Lab Tomorrow! Need Help
> > >Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 11:37:48 -0400
> > >
> > >Thinking about it further, and reading the additional posts, disabling
> > >spanning tree seems to be the only way. Even if there were multiple
> > >switches
> > >and you were running root gaurd, what if the switch with root gaurd
> > >configured went dead?
> > >
> > >As a side.....
> > >Even if there is only one actual switch (I went to the old 2 day a
> year ago
> > >and am hoping it is the same amount of equipment but one never knows eh?
> > >even if you have been before), if you connect a router running bridge to
> > >that switch don't you essentially have 2 bridges? Fundamentally from the
> > >spanning-tree perspective would it not be the same as having 2 switches?
> > >Not
> > >that this changes the answer, just a point of observation.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: dwhitley@dynis.com [mailto:dwhitley@dynis.com]
> > >Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 9:34 AM
> > >To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > >Subject: RE: Lab Tomorrow! Need Help
> > >
> > >
> > >Austin,
> > >I agree with your thinking. The point you raise has always bothered me
> > >concerning this question, there is only one switch. So disabling spanning
> > >tree seems to be the only option. The "trick" to this question is people
> > >trying to solve it with the priority or mac address.
> > >
> > >Dean
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: austin.2.alao@bt.com [mailto:austin.2.alao@bt.com]
> > >Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 8:13 AM
> > >To: tobrien@cinci.rr.com; clarson52@comcast.net; sandyccie@yahoo.com;
> > >gparrish@yahoo.com; mamoor@ieee.org
> > >Cc: tsabry@slb.com; jgraun@attbi.com; bsin@erols.com; whitfill@cox.net;
> > >ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > >Subject: RE: Lab Tomorrow! Need Help
> > >
> > >
> > >Dear Tim,
> > >
> > >Doesn't your point kind of contradict itself?
> > >
> > >If the lab is not real life, and you are only supposed to configure things
> > >as they exist, surely with only One Ethernet switch, setting the priority
> > >to
> > >the highest means it can never become root for that vlan.
> > >
> > >Since when did they start adding switches to the lab after you finished?
> > >
> > >Do you get my point here?
> > >
> > >Ok, now for the serious stuff, a switch CAN become root even with the
> > >highest priority set.
> > >So if the question said "UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE" they that does not
> meet the
> > >requirement.
> > >The question is basically asking you to create a "SINGLE switch" L2 LAN
> > >where NO root will be required.
> > >
> > >Disable STP is the ONLY way to achieve this under ALL circumstances
> cos the
> > >switch will never see any other switches.
> > >
> > >My $0.2
> > >
> > >Austin.
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Tim O'Brien [mailto:tobrien@cinci.rr.com]
> > >Sent: 09 April 2002 09:33
> > >To: Chris Larson; Sandro Ciffali; Greg Parrish; Ahmed Mamoor Amimi
> > >Cc: tsabry; 'Jason'; 'Bob Sinclair'; 'Larry Whitfill'; ccielab
> > >Subject: RE: Lab Tomorrow! Need Help
> > >
> > >
> > >Again... you are overthinking it. If the question states that you need to
> > >set something for a particular vlan, set it for that vlan.. What
> happens on
> > >other vlans DOES NOT MATTER! You are there to configure what is asked in
> > >the
> > >question. If you do not, you will not pass....
> > >
> > >Tim
> > >CCIE 9015
> > >
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Chris Larson [mailto:clarson52@comcast.net]
> > >Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 10:20 PM
> > >To: Sandro Ciffali; Greg Parrish; Ahmed Mamoor Amimi
> > >Cc: Tim O'Brien; tsabry@slb.com; 'Jason'; 'Bob Sinclair'; 'Larry
> Whitfill';
> > >ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > >Subject: Re: Lab Tomorrow! Need Help
> > >
> > >
> > >If you only disable spanning tree for a particular vlan then wouldn't it
> > >still be possible for the switch to become root for another vlan, assuming
> > >you are doing PVST? If you are running PVST then you would have to set the
> > >priority high on all the vlans so it wouldn't become the root on any, or
> > >disable spanning on all of them, definetly not a good idea. If you are not
> > >running PVST, then why not just change the priority.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Sandro Ciffali" <sandyccie@yahoo.com>
> > >To: "Greg Parrish" <gparrish@yahoo.com>; "Ahmed Mamoor Amimi"
> > ><mamoor@ieee.org>
> > >Cc: "Tim O'Brien" <tobrien@cinci.rr.com>; <tsabry@slb.com>; "'Jason'"
> > ><jgraun@attbi.com>; "'Bob Sinclair'" <bsin@erols.com>; "'Larry Whitfill'"
> > ><whitfill@cox.net>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > >Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 8:15 PM
> > >Subject: Re: Lab Tomorrow! Need Help
> > >
> > >
> > > > My vote goes for Tim,
> > > > I would read the question carefuly, If the lab says
> > > > the switch should never become root, the only answer
> > > > is to disable the spantree for that vlan, Yes there
> > > > are drawbacks doing that, But remember you are not
> > > > turning off spanning tree for the switch, you are
> > > > turning off for that vlan. IF the question says make
> > > > the switch less probable to be root then i would
> > > > increase the priority. Making the priority 0 is
> > > > definatly making it the root, I have tried this using
> > > > a switch and a router as a bridge with spanning tree.
> > > >
> > > > Sandeep
> > > > 8988
> > > > --- Greg Parrish <gparrish@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > I think turning it off all together is the wrong
> > > > > answer. Just like in OSPF if
> > > > > they say never become the DR, they dont mean to turn
> > > > > off OSPF, just set the
> > > > > priority to 0. They need to rephrase the question
> > > > > because as someone said I can
> > > > > always change all the other switches on the lan to
> > > > > the same priority and you
> > > > > will become root if you now have the lowest mac, so
> > > > > again no guarantee you wont
> > > > > be root which is what they are asking you for and
> > > > > thus leaves the question
> > > > > open.
> > > > >
> > > > > Greg
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ahmed Mamoor Amimi wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > 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 - 10:58:01 GMT-3