From: Chua, Parry (Parry.Chua@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Apr 10 2002 - 00:31:37 GMT-3
Now, what if the proctor reply, "it is up to you" what should we do...
Regards
parry
-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Munzani [mailto:sam@munzani.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 10:46 PM
To: Craig Columbus; dwhitley@dynis.com
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Lab Tomorrow! Need Help
Let's put it this way.
Removing STP is the 100% correct answer to your question. However, if same
questions is expecting to make sure there is no loops in the network, you
can't turn off spanning tree. So a 100% correct answer may not be the
solutions lab is expecting from you. The best thing you could do is, ask
proctor if he cares about leaving loops in network.
Sam Munzani
CCIE # 6479, CISSP
> I notice that the only two contributors who state that they've passed the
> lab, Tim (#9015), and Sandeep (#8988), both agree that turning off
spantree
> on the vlan is the solution. Are there any other contributors to this
> thread who have their number? I respect the opinions of all the
> contributors to this thread, but if everyone who passed the lab agrees
that
> turning off spantree on the vlan is the best solution for a lab scenario,
I
> have to lend a bit more credence to that answer. Obviously, the answer
for
> the real world might be different, as already discussed.
>
> Craig
>
> At 09:33 AM 4/9/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> >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 - 10:58:03 GMT-3