From: Anthony Sequeira (terry.francona@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Aug 15 2005 - 18:48:58 GMT-3
Yes..."modern" 3550s are NOT doing RSTP by default -although it looks
like they are when you do show spanning-tree commands.
In order to achieve RSTP - you can set the mode to either Rapid-PVST
or MST. Rapid-PVST is a mode that Cisco added for those that do not
want to leap headlong into MST (Multiple Spanning Tree).
As far as the original query in this thread....this is where I have an
ask the proctor moment for sure. I explain to the proctor why I think
both configurations would meet the requirement and look for guidance
on which the GRADING SCRIPT is looking for!
In my last (second) attempt - I was a bit lazy about going to the
proctors because, quite frankly, I thought I was kicking the exams
ass. I will not make that mistake again.
ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I MISSED WAS THE RESULT OF GRAMMAR IN A
TASK........DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN TO YOU!
On 8/15/05, marvin greenlee <marvin@ccbootcamp.com> wrote:
> "Per-VLAN RSTP is supported in Release 12.1(13)EA1 or later. When you enable
> PVRST by using the spanning-tree mode rapid-pvst global configuration
> command, RSTP is enabled."
>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps646/products_configuration
> _guide_chapter09186a008014f34d.html#wp1035485
>
>
>
> Marvin Greenlee, CCIE#12237, CCSI# 30483
> Network Learning Inc
> marvin@ccbootcamp.com
> www.ccbootcamp.com (Cisco Training)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Edwards, Andrew M
> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 1:31 PM
> To: robj; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: 3550 lab stp [bcc][faked-from][bayes]
> Importance: Low
>
> Rob,
>
> Effectively these both do the same thing: rapid stp and uplinkfast.
> However, I don't think the IOS for the 3550 support rapid stp yet.
>
> My 2cents.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: robj [mailto:rob@warnerbeach.com]
> Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 2:32 AM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: 3550 lab stp
>
>
> If you have a question that states " configure the switch to unblock
> immediately the redundant path in the event of a failure" The actual
> answer was use the uplink fast option however In my opinion I felt that
> rapid-pvst was not only quicker but also more efficient as it doesnt
> cause all other intefaces to flood multicast packets everywhere for each
> address learnt. It also appears to achieve the same desired result so
> you could argue both are a valid solution
>
> Appreciate anyones thoughts opinions?
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Sep 04 2005 - 17:01:19 GMT-3