From: Larry Letterman (lletterm@cisco.com)
Date: Mon May 09 2005 - 22:33:02 GMT-3
you are correct in that sense..we really see no reason to split vlans across
trunks.
If we need the bandwidth and cannot use gig 0/1, 0/2 then we use etherchannel
to
combine links. Load balancing vlans across links does not make sense for
us..but it is
possible to do so...the only way I would do so is to have each trunk the
primary route
for half the vlans..and I would use hsrp to do it...less problems than L2
mechanism...
############################
Larry Letterman
Cisco Systems
############################
----- Original Message -----
From: mani poopal
To: mani poopal ; Larry Letterman ; ccie2be ; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 8:21 PM
Subject: Re: spanning-tree vlan 10 port-priority vs swithport allowed vlan
Hi Larry,
I did not read all your email, If you use allowed vlan on both trunks to
same, You will have the failover, the problems comes when you send some vlans
across one trunk and other across other trunk
Mani
mani poopal <mani_ccie@yahoo.com> wrote:
Larry,
But when you hardcode allowed vlans(say vlan 2,3,4 over fa 0/23 and vlan
4,5,6 over fa 0/24), If one link fails(say fa 0/24), I don't think vlan 4,5,6
can traverse over fa 0/23 because you have hard coded the allowed vlans. Have
you ever tried sutting down one trunk.
Mani
Larry Letterman wrote:
I dont think so , Mani...all our switches have two trunks, one to gw1 and
one to gw2.
The 35xx switches are all using switchport trunk with vlan allowed. if one
trunk fails the other
trunk becomes unblocked in stp and takes over. The same vlans are allowed
on both trunks, so I
dont see how it wont failover....
############################
Larry Letterman
Cisco Systems
############################
----- Original Message -----
From: mani poopal
To: Larry Letterman ; ccie2be ; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: spanning-tree vlan 10 port-priority vs swithport allowed
vlan
Hi Larry,
As Tim said, if the trunk configured with switch port allowed vlan and if
that trunk fails, there is no failover(to other trunk), but when you use
port-priority on the root switch(or cost on non root switch), there is an
effective failover. But when you have only one trunk, you can manipulate what
vlan's traverses across the trunk. I think at your place you have only one
trunk between the switches.
thanks
Mani
Larry Letterman wrote:
we use switcvhport vlan allowed inside cisco...in case you are
wondering..
############################
Larry Letterman
Cisco Systems
############################
----- Original Message -----
From: "mani poopal"
To: "ccie2be" ;
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 6:16 PM
Subject: RE: spanning-tree vlan 10 port-priority vs swithport allowed
vlan
> Hi Tim,
>
> Port priority is better switchport allowed vlan method. Just curious
what
method cisco likes, hopefully port priority method.
>
> As always thanks
>
> Mani
>
> ccie2be wrote:
> Mani,
>
> Come on, guy. I know you know which is better.
>
> Think about what happens if one of the links goes down with each
method.
>
> Tim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
mani
> poopal
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 6:44 PM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: spanning-tree vlan 10 port-priority vs swithport allowed vlan
>
> Hi Group,
> I have a question in tunking.
> -Asssume sw1 is connected to sw2 via fa 0/23 and fa 0/24 both isl
> trunking(not etherchannel)
> -There are vlan 10, 20 and 30 defined.
> -For all the vlan sw1 is the root
>
> If the task ask us to send the vlan 10 through fa 0/24 trunk(default it
will
> go through fa 0/23 trunk), what is the solutions. Please look at the
> following both solutions and give your thoughsts
>
> method1:
> sw1:
> int fa 0/24
> spannig-tree vlan 10 port-priority 96 (less than 128)
>
> mehod2:
> sw1/sw2
> int fa 0/24
> switchport trunk allowed vlan 10
> int fa 0/23
> switchport trunk allowed vlan 20,30
>
> guys what is the difference between both methods, according to my
knowledge,
> both accomplishes the same goal, any thoughts.
>
> thanks
>
> Mani
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Mail Mobile
> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
> B.ENG,A+,CCNA,CCNP,CCNP-VOICE, CSS1,CNA,MCSE
> (416)431 9929
> MANI_CCIE@YAHOO.COM
>
> ---------------------------------
> Discover Yahoo!
> Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing & more. Check it out!
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscription information may be found at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
B.ENG,A+,CCNA,CCNP,CCNP-VOICE, CSS1,CNA,MCSE
(416)431 9929
MANI_CCIE@YAHOO.COM
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour
B.ENG,A+,CCNA,CCNP,CCNP-VOICE, CSS1,CNA,MCSE
(416)431 9929
MANI_CCIE@YAHOO.COM
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscription information may be found at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
B.ENG,A+,CCNA,CCNP,CCNP-VOICE, CSS1,CNA,MCSE
(416)431 9929
MANI_CCIE@YAHOO.COM
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jun 03 2005 - 10:11:57 GMT-3