From: Salman Abbas (dukelondon@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Oct 28 2006 - 01:36:27 ART
Hi,
Thanks for your reply. My question states "the time should be reduced to "5"
seconds". If i use value 2, 2+2=4. if it the question asked us to reduce it to
an even number, it would have been a piece of cake. But how do you achieve an
odd number such as 5?Regards,
--------------------------------------------------------Salman Abbas
CCNP,CCSP,CCSE,CCDA,ASFENetwork Consultant - SingaporeNCS Communications
Engineering Pte LtdDID : +65-6556-7644HP : +65-8113-6774Email :
asyed@ncs.com.sg--------------------------------------------------------
From: Magmax@bigpond.net.auTo: dukelondon@hotmail.comCC:
ccielab@groupstudy.comSubject: RE: Forward-delay timeDate: Sat, 28 Oct 2006
14:27:34 +1000
Should be : spanning-tree vlan x forward-time 2
forward-time - value is for each of state
Here for listening and learning will be total 4
You can also test this on the switch
Turn on debug spanning-tree events
And issue shut and no shut on port
Ubaid
From: Salman Abbas [mailto:dukelondon@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, 28 October
2006 1:48 PMTo: Ubaid Iftikhar (AU)Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.comSubject: RE:
Forward-delay time
Hi, If a question says: Ensure that the time spent in "listening and learning"
for a topology change is reduced to 5 seconds, what should my answer be?
Should it be : spanning-tree vlan x forward-time 5Kindly clarify. Thanks in
advance!!
> From: Magmax@bigpond.net.au> To: aamiraz77@gmail.com; sabri_esame@yahoo.com>
CC: Upp_and_Upp@hotmail.com; cvictor@protokolgroup.com;
ccielab@groupstudy.com> Subject: RE: Forward-delay time> Date: Sat, 28 Oct
2006 12:39:46 +1000> > Guys,> > I have tested this in lab> > spanning-tree
vlan 60 forward-time 7 --------- this command is only require> on root under
PVST> > > > > -----Original Message-----> From: nobody@groupstudy.com
[mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of> Aamir Aziz> Sent: Friday, 1
September 2006 6:53 PM> To: sabrina pittarel> Cc: Sean C.; Victor Cappuccio;
GroupStudy> Subject: Re: Forward-delay time> > wow thankyou guys that was a
great help....> > On 9/1/06, sabrina pittarel <sabri_esame@yahoo.com> wrote:>
>> > Holy cow guys,> > I really cannot stay behind you...you are SO SO
active!> > Anyway good thing I have nothing to add when the switches speak!>
>> > Well, I cannot refrain myself, there *is* something I should add.> >> >
In 802.1d and Cisco PVST you change the timers of the STP on the root> >
bridge because the route bridge it is the only swhitch generating the> BPDUs>
> (the intermediate switches merely replicate these BPDUs and adjust the>
path> > cost).> > But this is not TRUE for RapidSTP. On rapid all switches
generates BPDUs> > and I believe (I don't have a switch at end to check) that
if you change> the> > hello interval (for example) on an intermediate switch
it'll start sending> > its own BPDUs at the configured rate.> >> > Sabrina> >>
>> >> > ----- Original Message ----> > From: Sean C.
<Upp_and_Upp@hotmail.com>> > To: Victor Cappuccio <cvictor@protokolgroup.com>;
sabrina pittarel <> > sabri_esame@yahoo.com>> > Cc: GroupStudy
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>> > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 11:00:56 PM> >
Subject: Re: Forward-delay time> >> > HI Victor,> >> > How are you typing so
fast? ;-)> >> > Ok, I think I have it. I think I got mixed up when Scott wrote
"... there> > really isn't any magical difference that setting the max-age
timer is> > going to> > play!"> >> > I think I misinterpreted what he was
confirming.> >> > From what you are showing now (and correlating to what
Sabrina wrote> > earlier),> > the root bridge only needs to have the
forward-delay settings.> >> > So..., to finish up Aamir's question from the
initial post:> > --do we need to issue this command on both the switches or
only on where> > the> > Vlan X exists> > The answer is you need to apply the
new times to the root switch for that> > respective vlan.> >> > Again, most
apprec for the time. I know your date is approaching> > quickly. I> > have
confidence if you see anything like this on the lab, you'll blast> > through>
> the task quickly and confidently!> > Sean> >> > PS -- I'd like to see the
proctor's face when I ask if I can install> > Ethereal/WireShark on my lab
PC.> > ----- Original Message -----> > From: Victor Cappuccio> > To: 'Sean C.'
; 'sabrina pittarel'> > Cc: 'GroupStudy'> > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006
7:38 PM> > Subject: RE: Forward-delay time> >> >> > Sorry Sean, I was not
following this Thread, to much work this days, So I> > do> > not know what
Brian Did, for sure is correct.> >> >> >> > Also Remember that trunk are
listed as part of Vlans, so in a well design> > Spanning-tree you would have
that vlan also assigned to the trunk port> > (assign> > I> >> > mean
Transported)> >> >> >> > Ok lets try it again> >> >> >> > Rack3Sw2(config)#int
f0/11> >> > Rack3Sw2(config-if)#sw mo a> >> > Rack3Sw2(config-if)#sw a vlan
143> >> > % Access VLAN does not exist. Creating vlan 143> >> >> >> > At the
linux Box> >> >> >> > 22:26:28.981498 802.1d config
808f.00:0e:84:d0:d3:80.800b root> > 808f.00:0e:84:d0:d3:80 pathcost 0 age 0
max 20 hello 2 fdelay 15> >> >> >> > At Sw2> >> > Rack3Sw2(config-if)#do show
vlan id 143 | in Stat|Fa> >> > VLAN Name Status Ports> >> > 143 VLAN0143
active Fa0/11> >> >> >> > At Sw1> >> >> >> > Rack3Sw1(config-if)#do show vlan
id 143 | in Stat|Fa> >> > VLAN Name Status Ports> >> > 143 VLAN0143 active
Fa0/15> >> >> >> > Rack3Sw1(config-if)#do show spanning-tree vlan 143 | in
root> >> > This bridge is the root> >> >> >> >
Rack3Sw1(config-if)#spanning-tree vlan 143 fo 5> >> >> >> > 22:31:01.852568
802.1d config 808f.00:0e:84:d0:d3:80.800b root> > 808f.00:0b:5f:55:f8:00
pathcost 19 age 1 max 20 hello 2 fdelay 5> >> >> >> > Now if the trunk fails
then Sw2 will become the root> >> > 22:30:11.845904 802.1d config TOP_CHANGE
808f.00:0e:84:d0:d3:80.800b root> > 808f.00:0b:5f:55:f8:00 pathcost 19 age 1
max 20 hello 2 fdelay 15> >> > 22:30:13.846076 802.1d config
808f.00:0e:84:d0:d3:80.800b root> > 808f.00:0b:5f:55:f8:00 pathcost 19 age 1
max 20 hello 2 fdelay 15> >> >> >> > Now the question here is to ask the kind
proctor,> >> > Dear sir, please could you be so kind in telling me if the
trunk is going> > to> > fail near my evaluation ;)> >> >> >> > Victor.-> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------->
-> > -> >> > De: Sean C. [mailto:Upp_and_Upp@hotmail.com]> > Enviado el:
Viernes, 01 de Septiembre de 2006 01:21 a.m.> > Para: Victor Cappuccio;
'sabrina pittarel'> > CC: 'GroupStudy'> > Asunto: Re: Forward-delay time> >>
>> >> > HI Victor,> >> >> >> > Wow, great post!! But, now I'm more confused
then ever! :-)> >> >> >> > Perhaps Brian's Sw2 config also had the forwarding
delay altered but it> > just> > wasn't mentioned. So..., somewhere between
points 2 and 3 (let's call it> > point 2.5)said:> >> > 2-SW2 is the root.> >>
> 2.5-SW2's forwarding delay is configured as 4 seconds for VLAN 100.> >> >
3-SW1's forwarding delay is configured as 4 seconds for VLAN 100.> >> >> >> >
This cuts back to the 2nd part of the original email Aamir (remember way> >
back when):> >> > --do we need to issue this command on both the switches or
only on where> > the> > Vlan X exists> >> >> >> > So..., what happens if,
taking your scenario, while SW1 is still the root> > of> > Vlan X, if SW1
doesn't have any physical interfaces assigned to Vlan X,> > can> > the
forward-delay just be altered on the SW2?> >> >> >> > Curious for input (and
thanks again for the great post),> >> > Sean> >> >> >> > ----- Original
Message -----> >> > From: Victor Cappuccio> >> > To: 'Sean C.' ; 'sabrina
pittarel'> >> > Cc: 'GroupStudy'> >> > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 7:02
PM> >> > Subject: RE: Forward-delay time> >> >> >> > Hi Sean> >> >> >> >
Sorry, I'm jumping back a thread here.> >> >> >> > But I like more than words,
the debugs output> >> >> >> > Using this topology> >> >> >> > Sw1 ---- Trunk
---- Sw2 --- f0/11 --- Linux box> >> >> >> > I have the following> >> >> >> >
Rack3Sw1(config)#do show spanning-tree vlan 1> >> >> >> > VLAN0001> >> >
Spanning tree enabled protocol ieee> >> > Root ID Priority 8193> >> > Address
000b.5f55.f800> >> > This bridge is the root> >> > Hello Time 2 sec Max Age 20
sec Forward Delay 15 sec> >> >> >> > Bridge ID Priority 8193 (priority 8192
sys-id-ext 1)> >> > Address 000b.5f55.f800> >> > Hello Time 2 sec Max Age 20
sec Forward Delay 15 sec> >> > Aging Time 600> >> >> >> > Interface Role Sts
Cost Prio.Nbr Type> >> > ---------------- ---- --- --------- --------> >
--------------------------------> >> > Fa0/15 Desg FWD 19 128.15 P2p> >> >> >>
>> >> > If I sniff at the Linux Box for packet received> >> > I'm getting
this> >> > 21:53:41.585364 802.1d config 2001.00:0e:84:d0:d3:80.800b root> >
2001.00:0b:5f:55:f8:00 pathcost 19 age 1 max 20 hello 2 fdelay 15> >> >> >> >
As you can see the FDelay is 15> >> >> >> > If I change the timer at Sw1> >>
>> >> > Rack3Sw1(config)#spanning-tree vlan 1 forward-time 4> >> >
Rack3Sw1(config)#do show spanning-tree vlan 1 | in Dela> >> > Hello Time 2 sec
Max Age 20 sec Forward> > Delay> > 4 sec> >> > Hello Time 2 sec Max Age 20 sec
Forward Delay 4 sec> >> >> >> > I'm receiving this at the Linux Box> >> >> >>
> 21:54:49.588715 802.1d config 2001.00:0e:84:d0:d3:80.800b root> >
2001.00:0b:5f:55:f8:00 pathcost 19 age 1 max 20 hello 2 fdelay 4> >> >> >> >
So as you can see the Root is in charge of sending BPDUs> >> >> >> > If I
Change the FDelay at Sw2> >> > Rack3Sw2(config)#spanning-tree vlan 1
forward-time 5> >> > Rack3Sw2(config)#do show spanning-tree vlan 1 | in Dela>
>> > Hello Time 2 sec Max Age 20 sec Forward Delay 4 sec> >> > Hello Time 2
sec Max Age 20 sec Forward Delay 5 sec> >> >> >> > The host is still receiving
this> >> > 22:00:21.606372 802.1d config 2001.00:0e:84:d0:d3:80.800b root> >
2001.00:0b:5f:55:f8:00 pathcost 19 age 1 max 20 hello 2 fdelay 4> >> >> >> >
HTH for something> >> > Victor.-> >> >> >> >> >> > -----Mensaje original----->
> De: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] En nombre de> >
Sean> > C.> > Enviado el: Viernes, 01 de Septiembre de 2006 12:31 a.m.> >
Para: sabrina pittarel> > CC: GroupStudy> > Asunto: Re: Forward-delay time> >>
>> >> > Hi Sabrina,> >> >> >> > Sorry to bring up an email from yesterday, but
I'm still trying to wrap> > my> >> > head around a comment of yours: 'THE STP
TIMERS MUST BE CHANGED ON THE> > ROOT> >> > BRIDGE FOR THE VLAN AND ONLY
THERE!'> >> >> >> > If you still have the email, refer to the excellent email
that Brian> > sent.> >> > If I'm understanding Brian's post, while Sw2 is the
root bridge, he is> >> > changing the forwarding delay on Switch 1 only:> >>
>> >> > Curious for anyone thoughts,> >> > Sean> >> >> >> > 1-In the below
example SW1 and SW2 have two trunk links, Fa0/13 (the> > root> >> > port) and
Fa0/14.> >> > 2-SW2 is the root.> >> > 3-SW1's forwarding delay is configured
as 4 seconds for VLAN 100.> >> > 4-Fa0/13 is shut down on SW2 and Fa0/14
transitions to forwarding on> > SW1> > in> >> > 8 seconds. Note that max-age
does not apply:> >> >> >> > SW1#show spanning-tree vlan 100> >> > VLAN0100> >>
> Spanning tree enabled protocol ieee> >> > Root ID Priority 32868> >> >
Address 000f.8fb2.e800> >> > Cost 19> >> > Port 13 (FastEthernet0/13)> >> >
Hello Time 2 sec Max Age 20 sec Forward Delay 4 sec> >> >> >> > Bridge ID
Priority 32868 (priority 32768 sys-id-ext 100)> >> > Address 000f.8fe0.3500>
>> > Hello Time 2 sec Max Age 20 sec Forward Delay 4 sec> >> > Aging Time 300>
>> >> >> > Interface Role Sts Cost Prio.Nbr Type> >> > ---------------- ----
--- --------- --------> > -------------------------------> >> > Fa0/13 Root
FWD 19 128.13 P2p> >> > Fa0/14 Altn BLK 19 128.14 P2p> >> >> >> > SW1#> >> >
04:57:14: STP: VLAN0100 new root port Fa0/14, cost 19> >> > 04:57:14: STP:
VLAN0100 Fa0/14 -> listening> >> > !> >> > ! AT 14 SECONDS AFTER THE FAILURE
IS DETECTED AND FA0/14 GOES INTO> > LISTENING> >> > !> >> > 04:57:15:
%LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface> > FastEthernet0/13,> >> >
changed state to down> >> > 04:57:16: STP: VLAN0100 sent Topology Change
Notice on Fa0/14> >> > 04:57:16: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface FastEthernet0/13,
changed state to> > down> >> > 04:57:18: STP: VLAN0100 Fa0/14 -> learning> >>
> !> >> > ! 4 SECONDS LATER LISTENING EXPIRES AND LEARNING BEGINS> >> > !> >>
> 04:57:22: STP: VLAN0100 Fa0/14 -> forwarding> >> > !> >> > ! 4 SECONDS LATER
LEARNING EXPIRES AND FORWARDING BEGINS> >> > !> >> >> >> > If max-age were
taken into account here the convergence would take 28> >> > seconds (max-age +
listening + learning) when in reality is takes just> > 8> >> > seconds
(listening + learning)> >> >> >> > SW1#show spanning-tree vlan 100> >> >> >> >
VLAN0100> >> > Spanning tree enabled protocol ieee> >> > Root ID Priority
32868> >> > Address 000f.8fb2.e800> >> > Cost 19> >> > Port 14
(FastEthernet0/14)> >> > Hello Time 2 sec Max Age 20 sec Forward Delay 4 sec>
>> >> >> > Bridge ID Priority 32868 (priority 32768 sys-id-ext 100)> >> >
Address 000f.8fe0.3500> >> > Hello Time 2 sec Max Age 20 sec Forward Delay 4
sec> >> > Aging Time 4> >> >> >> > Interface Role Sts Cost Prio.Nbr Type> >> >
---------------- ---- --- --------- --------> >
-------------------------------> >> > Fa0/14 Root FWD 19 128.14 P2p> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ----- Original Message -----> >> > From: "sabrina
pittarel" <sabri_esame@yahoo.com>> >> > To: "Sean C" <tecmochamp@hotmail.com>;
<swm@emanon.com>; "ROCHA Leandro> >> > ORANGE-FT"
<leandro.rocha@orange-ft.com>; "Aamir Aziz"> > <aamiraz77@gmail.com>> >> > Cc:
"GroupStudy" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>> >> > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006
9:18 PM> >> > Subject: Re: Forward-delay time> >> >> >> >> >> > Hi,> >> > a
word of wisdom the kind proctor shared with me on my failed attempt> > and> >>
> that I'm going to share with you now:> >> >> >> > "in the CCIE lab you do
what you are asked, not what makes sense".> >> >> >> > About where to change
the STP timers.> >> >> >> > THE STP TIMERS MUST BE CHANGED ON THE ROOT BRIDGE
FOR THE VLAN AND> > ONLY> >> > THERE!> >> >> >> > Sabrina> >> >> >> >> >> >
----- Original Message ----> >> > From: Sean C <tecmochamp@hotmail.com>> >> >
To: swm@emanon.com; ROCHA Leandro ORANGE-FT> > <leandro.rocha@orange-ft.com>;>
>> > Aamir Aziz <aamiraz77@gmail.com>> >> > Cc: GroupStudy
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>> >> > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 12:36:49 PM>
>> > Subject: Re: Forward-delay time> >> >> >> > Sorry, I'm jumping back a
thread here.> >> >> >> > Scott - concerning your comment "Although the lab
scenario may ask you> > to> >> > specifically change one piece, don't
automatically assume you have to> >> > recalculate everything else! If you
aren't asked to, don't do it."> >> >> >> > Perhaps that is why you have four
CCIE's and I'm beyond my fourth> > attempt> > at> >> > my first CCIE. I'd be
looking at the scenario in the regards of -> > assuming> >> > that the vlan is
on all the switches (possibly via VTP), even if no> > physical> >> > interface
is assigned the vlan in question, that the lab would be> > wanting> >> > you
to apply the statement to all switches that have that vlan in their> > vlan>
>> > database. But, I can certainly understand your reasoning - if only one> >
of> >> > the switches has a port applied to that vlan, then only change that>
> switch.> >> > Perhaps, the lab would be seeing if you know that you only
need to> > apply> > the> >> > command to one switch, it's not something that
has to be applied> > everywhere.> >> > Again, thanks for the re-think.> >> >>
>> > This is kind-of along the lines of that vaunted question in OSPF where> >
the> >> > task is to adjust the auto-cost bandwidth. For the cost to be
computed> > the> >> > same on every device, the config would need to be
applied to every> > device.> >> > But perhaps the task only is looking to see
if you recognize that you> > need> >> > to configure this on one device with
that type of interface. <Hope> > that> >> > made sense!>> >> >> >> > Again,
thanks,> >> > Sean> >> >> >> >> >> > ----- Original Message -----> >> > From:
"Scott Morris" <swm@emanon.com>> >> > To: "'Sean C'"
<Upp_and_Upp@hotmail.com>; "'ROCHA Leandro ORANGE-FT'"> >> >
<leandro.rocha@orange-ft.com>; "'Aamir Aziz'" <aamiraz77@gmail.com>> >> > Cc:
"'GroupStudy'" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>> >> > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006
12:33 PM> >> > Subject: RE: Forward-delay time> >> >> >> >> >> > > While
technically your thinking is correct and a good idea in REAL> > LIFE> >> > >
network design, in the CCIE lab you are often presented with> > scenarios> >>
> that> >> > > logically would not play in real life.> >> > >> >> > > Don't
over-think things! With a two-switch ethernet network, there> > really> >> > >
isn't any magical difference that setting the max-age timer is going> > to> >>
> > play! Watch your "show spanning-tree" information to see what the> >> >
switches> >> > > do.> >> > >> >> > > Although the lab scenario may ask you to
specifically change one> > piece,> >> > > don't automatically assume you have
to recalculate everything> > else! If> >> > you> >> > > aren't asked to, don't
do it.> >> > >> >> > > If the scenario asked you to keep all of the 802.1D
ratios, yet still> > make> >> > > convergence time faster with those
specifics, THEN perhaps you'll> > think> >> > down> >> > > this path!> >> > >>
>> > > Believe me, this is a path that many people take because of> >
real-world> >> > > expectations that we have and knowledge of the actual> >> >
> application/implication of changing things like this. But in a lab> >> > >
environment, particularly with the limited pieces of equipment that> > we> >>
> have,> >> > > you should ask yourself whether it will make a difference, or
not> > work> >> > > properly otherwise.> >> > >> >> > > HTH,> >> > >> >> > >>
>> > > Scott Morris, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713,> >
JNCIE> >> > > #153, CISSP, et al.> >> > > CCSI/JNCI-M/JNCI-J> >> > > IPExpert
VP - Curriculum Development> >> > > IPExpert Sr. Technical Instructor> >> > >
smorris@ipexpert.com> >> > > http://www.ipexpert.com> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>
>> > > -----Original Message-----> >> > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com
[mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf> > Of> >> > Sean> >> > > C> >> > >
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 11:49 AM> >> > > To: ROCHA Leandro ORANGE-FT;
Aamir Aziz> >> > > Cc: GroupStudy> >> > > Subject: Re: Forward-delay time> >>
> >> >> > > Hi Leandro,> >> > >> >> > > If the task was asking to go from
blocking to forwarding state in> > under> > 16> >> > > secs, wouldn't that be
when you would take into consideration the> > max-age> >> > > timer?> >> > >>
>> > > This task specifically states to alter the forward-delay time only,> >>
> nothing> >> > > about altering the entire STP equation - "Configure the
forward-delay> > time> >> > > of a Vlan X under 16 seconds." Taking the task
into consideration, I> >> > would> >> > > just alter the forward-time to a
value of 7.> >> > >> >> > > I understand what you're trying to do, I'm just
not sure that your> > answer> >> > > would meet the requirements of this
task.> >> > >> >> > > Also, Aamir - to answer the 2nd part of your original
post - "do we> > need> >> > to> >> > > issue this command on both the switches
or only on where the Vlan X> >> > exists."> >> > > - while, technically, you
would only need to apply it to a switch> > where> >> > the> >> > > vlan exists
- personally - as long as the vlan in question is able to> > be> >> > on> >> >
> the 2nd switch (no vlan pruning, or the switch w/out the vlan is a> > VTP>
>> > > transparent switch, etc...), I would apply the timer to both> >
switches.> >> > > Or, if I was really questioning it, I would ask the proctor
something> >> > along> >> > > the lines of "Should I take into consideration
the chances of that> > vlan> >> > > being used on the 2nd switch in the
future?...."> >> > >> >> > > HTH,> >> > > Sean> >> > >> >> > > ----- Original
Message -----> >> > > From: "ROCHA Leandro ORANGE-FT"
<leandro.rocha@orange-ft.com>> >> > > To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>> >> > >
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 10:05 AM> >> > > Subject: RE: Forward-delay
time> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > > I think we have to take in account the max-age
timer too.> >> > > >> >> > > > To have less than 16 seconds in any case, we
should put max-age to> > 6> > and> >> > > > fwd-delay to 4 (the minimum
values).> >> > > >> >> > > > Then we have a total of 6+4+4=14.> >> > > >> >> >
> > Leandro> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > "Brian
McGahan" <bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com>> >> > > > Sent by:
nobody@groupstudy.com> >> > > > 08/30/06 10:39 AM> >> > > > Please respond to
"Brian McGahan"> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > To: "Aamir Aziz"
<aamiraz77@gmail.com>,> >> > > <ccielab@groupstudy.com>> >> > > > cc:> >> > >
> bcc:> >> > > > Subject: RE: Forward-delay time> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >
>> >> > > > The forward-delay command configures each of the listening and> >>
> > > learning phase timers. This means that if you have it configured> > as>
> 15> >> > > > that it will take 30 seconds to go through both phases. If you>
> want> > to> >> > > > move from blocking to forwarding in less than 16
seconds your> > forward> >> > > > delay would have to be 8 or lower.> >> > >
>> >> > > > Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593> >> > > >
bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com> >> > > >> >> > > > Internetwork Expert, Inc.>
>> > > > http://www.InternetworkExpert.com> >> > > > Toll Free: 877-224-8987 x
705> >> > > > Outside US: 775-826-4344 x 705> >> > > > 24/7 Support:
http://forum.internetworkexpert.com> >> > > > Live Chat:
http://www.internetworkexpert.com/chat/> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > >
-----Original Message-----> >> > > > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com
[mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On> > Behalf> >> > > > Of> >> > > > > Aamir
Aziz> >> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 6:48 AM> >> > > > > To:
ccielab@groupstudy.com> >> > > > > Subject: Forward-delay time> >> > > > >> >>
> > > > Hi there,> >> > > > >> >> > > > > If the task says Configure the
forward-delay time of a Vlan X> > under> > 16> >> > > > > second then what
value do we use 15 or 16?> >> > > > >> >> > > > > #spanning-tree VLAN X
forward-time 15 or 16> >> > > > >> >> > > > > since by default it is 15, and
do we need to issue this command> > on> >> > > > both> >> > > > > the> >> > >
> > switches or only on where the Vlan X exists.> >> > > > >> >> > > > >
Thanks> >> > > > > Aamir> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Nov 01 2006 - 07:29:07 ART