Re: OT: UPLINKFAST versus BACKBONEFAST

From: Ram Shummoogum (rshummoo@ca.ibm.com)
Date: Wed Apr 20 2005 - 15:46:08 GMT-3

Next message: Pankaj Madhukar Kulkarni: "RE: lowering admin for EIGRP external routes"
Previous message: Sam Joseph: "Re: lowering admin for EIGRP external routes"
Maybe in reply to: PhiL: "OT: UPLINKFAST versus BACKBONEFAST"
Next in thread: Pankaj Madhukar Kulkarni: "RE: OT: UPLINKFAST versus BACKBONEFAST"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Backbonefast is used to bypass the max-age timer whereas uplinkfast is for
bringing the NDP into forwarding immediately upon a failure of the ROOT
port.

They are 2 different things and one does not replace the other.

RAM

             PhiL
             <theccie@gmail.co
             m> To
             Sent by: "Group Study (E-mail)"
             nobody@groupstudy <ccielab@groupstudy.com>,
             .com theccie@gmail.com
                                                                        cc

             20/04/2005 14:06 Subject
                                       OT: UPLINKFAST versus BACKBONEFAST

             Please respond to
                   PhiL

All,

I was reading about uplinkfast and backbonefast on CatOS. If I have
uplinkfast enabled on all my switches, would I ever need backbonefast
enabled also?

-- Regards,

PhiL

Next message: Pankaj Madhukar Kulkarni: "RE: lowering admin for EIGRP external routes"
Previous message: Sam Joseph: "Re: lowering admin for EIGRP external routes"
Maybe in reply to: PhiL: "OT: UPLINKFAST versus BACKBONEFAST"
Next in thread: Pankaj Madhukar Kulkarni: "RE: OT: UPLINKFAST versus BACKBONEFAST"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue May 03 2005 - 07:55:04 GMT-3