From: T. N. Noble (noble@inserviceindia.com)
Date: Tue Jun 07 2005 - 08:33:33 GMT-3
Hello,
I understand that there is a confusion in my question itself. Let me put it
like " VTP traffic should not be seen on all 24 fast Ethernet ports". Now
how would you suggest..Transparent or Ver 3 or Pruning...
Sorry for changing the question again....
Thanks,
Noble
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Lee
Donald
Sent: 07 June 2005 14:25
To: Roy Dempsey; Cisco certification
Subject: RE: VTP Question
Roy, Brussels,
I agree the question probably wanted VTP Transparent, however the question
below said to "stop vtp traffic from reaching all 24 ports" VTP Transparent
modes does not do that. In Transparent mode VTP Packets are recieved and
forwarded.
It depends on the question I suppose........... I agree there would be some
sort of trunking between the 2 switches in the lab.
Regards
Lee.
-----Original Message-----
From: Roy Dempsey [mailto:roy.dempsey@gmail.com]
Sent: 07 June 2005 11:43
To: Cisco certification
Subject: Re: VTP Question
I see brussles has answered the question about transparent mode forwarding
on VTP packets, so I would go with transparent mode.
From the doc CD:
Version-Dependent Transparent ModeIn VTP version 1, a VTP transparent
network device inspects VTP messages for the domain name and version, and
forwards a message only if the version and domain name match.
Because only one domain is supported in the supervisor engine software, VTP
version 2 forwards VTP messages in transparent mode, without checking the
version.
Good to know that about the different versions.
Roy
On 6/7/05, Roy Dempsey <roy.dempsey@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lee,
>
> I think your solution would work. However, on a lab scenario, I think
> its unlikely there would be no trunk between the switches.
>
> I'm not sure where this questions is from, but I think it *could* also
> mean setting the switch to transparent mode, as this would stop the
> switch from generating VTP packets.
>
> VTP packets received from other switches wouldn't be processed but
> would be forwarded however, so I'm not 100% sure this would achieve
> the required results.
>
> I would like to see this question in context to give a definitive
> answer .i.e was there a requirement to configure trunk links etc.
>
> Regards
> Roy
>
> On 6/7/05, Lee Donald <Lee.Donald@t-systems.co.uk> wrote:
> > Noble,
> >
> > I would deduce from this question that it wants to change each port
> > to "switchport Access" mode so that VTP frames are not sent out, by
> > default
all
> > ports will be dynamic.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Lee.
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: T. N. Noble [mailto:noble@inserviceindia.com]
> > Sent: 07 June 2005 10:51
> > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: VTP Question
> >
> > Hello Group,
> >
> > Can anybody help me to understand the following question correctly?
> >
> > "Restrict the VTP Traffic from reaching all the 24 fast Ethernet
> > ports
of
> > the switch". Is this question talking about VTP Pruning? I
> > understand
that
> > the VTP pruning is related to Trunks where as here the switch ports
> > are
in
> > Access Mode.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Noble
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________________
> > ___ 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
> >
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Roy
>
-- Regards, Roy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jul 06 2005 - 14:43:41 GMT-3