From: Dan Shechter (danshtr@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu Jul 08 2004 - 09:15:41 GMT-3
Koen Peetermans wrote:
>Hi,
>
>What would be the correlation of a (DLSW) bridge group spanning tree and the
>spanning tree running on the catalyst where the DLSW Ethernet interfaces are
>connected to ?
>
>Since the bridge group uses protocol IEEE, wouldn't there be a risk of the
>bridge group "participating" in the spanning tree running on the catalysts ?
>
>I has really weird behaviour when running DLSW, CDP frames going over the
>DLSW clouds, intermittent connection loss to the routers doing DLSW, .....
>
>Having LSAP filters on DLSW would solve some of these issues, but I'm still
>wondering if the bridge-group can mess-up the catalyst spanning tree.
>
>Am I correct ?
>
>Kind regards,
>
>Koen.
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study materials from:
>http://shop.groupstudy.com
>
>Subscription information may be found at:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
It probably DTP causing the dlsw becoming a link for a trunk!!!
On any interface on a switch which will be bridge via DLSW i would
recommend:
int f0/2
switchport nonnegotiate
Now DTP won;t be sent and no worries about trunks being formed.
BUT this config WONT work by default. You have first to decide what kind
of interface is it. access or trunk and then use switchport nonnegotiate.
int f0/2
switch-port mode access
switch-port nonnegotiate
There are times when 'nonnegotiate' is not needed, but usually it safe
to add this command.
HTH,
Dan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Aug 01 2004 - 10:11:49 GMT-3