From: Brian (briane@surewest.net)
Date: Wed May 24 2006 - 13:18:46 ART
Not sure I understand the question but it does not appear that setting a
port to access mode stops bpdus from being sent.
SW1#sh run int fa 0/2
Building configuration...
Current configuration : 83 bytes
!
interface FastEthernet0/2
switchport access vlan 2
switchport mode access
end
SW1#sh spanning-tree detail
...output excluded
Port 4 (FastEthernet0/2) of VLAN0002 is forwarding
Port path cost 19, Port priority 128, Port Identifier 128.4.
Designated root has priority 32770, address 0015.62a5.7700
Designated bridge has priority 32770, address 0015.62a5.7700
Designated port id is 128.4, designated path cost 0
Timers: message age 0, forward delay 0, hold 0
Number of transitions to forwarding state: 1
Link type is point-to-point by default
BPDU: sent 42101, received 0
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Carlos Campos Torres (ccampost)
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:32 PM
To: Nick Griffin; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Spanning Tree
Hi Nick,
If you set the port to an access mode, you will not send BPDUs out of
that interface which will keep that port out of the Spanning Tree
process. As you correctly said, if you do a show spanning-tree on the
vlan that access port belongs to, that will show as in a forwarding
status if I remember well.
I guess it just depends on what you want to accomplish and what you want
to deny, but strictly answering the question, I would agree that setting
a port as access avoids sending BPDUs and, therefore, participating in
the Spanning tree process (unless you had some type of bpdu filter that
would revert this behaviour if BPDUs got received or something like it).
Any other thoughts?
Carlos Campos
(919) 392-6285
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Nick Griffin
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:20 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Spanning Tree
Say I wanted to disable spanning tree on a per port basis, on a range of
ports, that may be assigned to multiple vlans. Does changing the mode to
access accomplish the requirement? From my observations it appears to
remove the interface from spanning tree on all vlans except for the vlan
that happens to be assigned to the interface. I'm just wondering if
spanning-tree should be disabled globally for the vlans and associated
interfaces, or if statically nailing up access mode is sufficient.
Thoughts appreciated.
Thanks
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 01 2006 - 06:33:22 ART