From: Anthony Pace (anthonypace@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Jun 18 2002 - 16:55:21 GMT-3
I think the SET SPANTREE ROOT is just a "canned" way of pushing a
fairly low prioriy into the switch. I don't think it is as effective a
setting the priority for a VLAN manually because when you do it
manually you can make it really low (100 or 1 or whatever). The ROOT
GUARD funtion can also be used to enforce the root position of the
switch.
I have another question: what is the difference between these two
commands? I know they effect the port priority:
set portvlancost
set port cost
THis is my understanding of how the other commands work and if someone
can confirm/correct me that would be GREAT!
1)On a router doing bridging we set the priority for the "BRIDGE" in
global configuration which determines our stanind in the spanning tree
root election.
2)On a router doing bridging we set the priority for the "PORT" in the
interface configuration. This determines this interfaces standing in
the decision of which port/interface on the ROUTER will be the optimal
path to the ROOT (in case we are not the root and there are redundant
paths and we need to BLOCK one)
3)On a CAT5 switch we use SET SPANTREE ROOT or SET SPANTREE PRIORITY or
SET SPANTREE ROOT which determines our stanind in the spanning tree
root election.
4)On a CAT5 switch we use "set portvlancost" or "set port cost". This
determines this interfaces standing in the decision of which
port/interface on the ROUTER will be the optimal path to the ROOT (in
case we are not the root and there are redundant paths and we need to
BLOCK one)
Is this right or wrong?
Anthony Pace
On Sat, 15 Jun 2002 13:51:11 +0200, "Krucker, Louis"
<louis.krucker@sunrise.net> said:
> Hi group
>
> If i want my switch is always root bridge for vlan 1 wich command
> is better?
>
> set spantree root 1
> or
> set spantree priority 0 1
>
> and i think if i dont set the vtp mode to server it doesnt work, right?
>
> Would be nice if somebody can clarify...
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Louis
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 02 2002 - 08:12:37 GMT-3