From: Gustavo Novais (gustavo.novais@novabase.pt)
Date: Wed Oct 26 2005 - 07:31:30 GMT-3
For what I've read PVST is indeed carried in the native vlan, but PVST+ is not. Each Vlan has its own BPDU's
-----Original Message-----
From: kgannon@gmail.com [mailto:kgannon@gmail.com] On Behalf Of kevin gannon
Sent: terga-feira, 25 de Outubro de 2005 19:47
To: Gustavo Novais
Cc: Group Study
Subject: Re: OT: What do you think will happen?
Is PSVT not carried in the native VLAN only so mixing/killing them could result in loops:
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/c2900xl/29_35xp/eescg/masctrnk.htm#xtocid262862
Regards
Kevin
On 10/25/05, Gustavo Novais <gustavo.novais@novabase.pt> wrote:
> Hi
>
> One question concerning switching.
>
> if you have a 802.1q trunk joining two different VTP domains (SW1-VTP
> domain A-------------802.1q trunk---------------SW2-VTP domain B), you
> must have (allow) matching vlans on both ends of the trunk.
>
> So you will have VTPA-vlan1---- VTPB-vlan1, VTPA-vlan50----VTPB-vlan50
> and so on. Besides that each switch has its own PVST+ database
> (meaning that on switch 1 has N stp instances and switch 2 has P stp instances.
>
> What will happen if by mistake on SW1 side we change the trunk's
> native vlan to a vlan that does not exist on VTP B, meaning that there
> is no STP instance on SW2 for that vlan?
>
> I tried to replicate that situation, and the result was that no
> traffic would pass though any trunk, even those that didn't
> interconnect SW1 to SW2, I'm still trying to figure out what could
> have happened... For what I could see there was no spanning-tree change or recomputation.
>
> I know that at GS, we try to understand how to make things work, and
> how, but at this case I'm trying to understand how things should not
> work!
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks
>
> Gustavo
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> _ Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
> MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Nov 06 2005 - 22:00:54 GMT-3