From: Udo (ccie_groupstudy@yahoo.de)
Date: Sun Nov 12 2006 - 03:51:08 ART
Hi all,
why do you not use also 'spanning-tree mst cost' ?
I'm confused about these two commands...is there any difference ?
Udo
> Another way to accomplish this is, is to use MST. Multiple Spanning-tree
> instances, if the requirement asks for it or not. It will load-balance
> across the interfaces.
>
>
> Instance 1 for VLANs 1 - 10
> Instance 2 for Vlans 11 - 20
>
> Sw 1
> Spanning-tree mst 1 priority 0
> Spanning-tree mst 2 priority 4096
>
> Sw2
> Spanning-tree mst 1 priority 4096
> Spanning-tree mst 2 priority 0
>
> On both switches:
>
> Int f0/23
> Spanning-tree mst 1 port-priority 0
> Spanning-tree mst 2 port-priority 128
>
> Int f0/24
> Spanning-tree mst 1 port-priority 128
> Spanning-tree mst 2 port-priority 0
>
> Thanks
>
> ZeroFlash
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Aaron T. Woland
> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 2:31 PM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: STP Load Balancing
>
> Etherchannel is only an option is all connections are to the same switch.
>
> -Aaron
>
> Aaron T. Woland | Consultant | INS | Email: aaron.woland@ins.com |
> Website: www.ins.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Petr
> Lapukhov
> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 10:55 AM
> To: Gustavo Novais
> Cc: Povarenkin, Igor; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: STP Load Balancing
>
> Thanks Gustavo,
>
> ..forgot that port cost option, how silly of me :)
>
> I also consider Etherchannel a viable load-balancing option too,
> although is not directly related to STP.
>
> One can also recall MSTP, with two instances being run
> on two different topologies here.
>
> HTH
> Petr
>
> 2006/3/24, Gustavo Novais <gustavo.novais@novabase.pt>:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Regarding this issue STP load balancing, you have 4 usual options:
> >
> >
> >
> > -Tuning root bridge for X vlans on a switch and to Y vlans on other
> > switch.
> >
> > -pruning vlans off the trunk link - without redundancy
> >
> > -setting port vlan priority on root bridge
> >
> > -setting port vlan cost on non root bridge
> >
> >
> >
> > If you get Cisco LAN Switching book, you will have detailed explanations
> > about
> > that.
> >
> >
> >
> > HTH
> >
> >
> >
> > Gustavo Novais
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> > Povarenkin, Igor
> > Sent: sexta-feira, 24 de Margo de 2006 12:43
> > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: STP Load Balancing
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello Group,
> >
> >
> >
> > Though I read many docs on STP,
> >
> > I'm still unclear about STP Load Balancing.
> >
> > For example, let say I want VLAN's 1 - 10 to
> >
> > use trunk A and VLAN's 11 - 20 to use trunk B or odd VLAN's to
> >
> > use Trunk A and even VLAN's to use Trunk B between SW-A and
> >
> > SW-B. Can I use "switchport trunk allowed vlan" command only to
> >
> > accomplish this task?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> >
> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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 : Fri Dec 01 2006 - 08:05:46 ART