From: Ahmed Mamoor Amimi (mamoor@xxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Apr 08 2002 - 19:47:57 GMT-3
> question. If you do not, you will not pass....
ooooo !! that hits hard.....
-Mamoor
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim O'Brien <tobrien@cinci.rr.com>
To: Chris Larson <clarson52@comcast.net>; Sandro Ciffali
<sandyccie@yahoo.com>; Greg Parrish <gparrish@yahoo.com>; Ahmed Mamoor Amimi
<mamoor@ieee.org>
Cc: <tsabry@slb.com>; 'Jason' <jgraun@attbi.com>; 'Bob Sinclair'
<bsin@erols.com>; 'Larry Whitfill' <whitfill@cox.net>;
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 1:33 PM
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