From: Tony Schaffran (groupstudy@cconlinelabs.com)
Date: Wed Nov 15 2006 - 23:22:38 ART
Spanning Tree should not affect VTP if it is setup properly.
How are your switches setup with regards to Server/Client/Transparent?
Have you configured domain names and/or passwords?
If you can post your VTP configs, we may be able to help more.
Tony Schaffran
Network Analyst
CCIE #11071
CCNP, CCNA, CCDA,
NNCDS, NNCSS, CNE, MCSE
www.cconlinelabs.com
Your #1 choice for online Cisco rack rentals.
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Michael Zuo
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 6:02 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: VTP issue with IEWB-RS version 4 sample lab
Hi Group,
I ran into an issue with the new sample lab with 4 switches and am
wondering if someone else has seen it or I've made a mistake somewhere:
For the switching part, when all the trunk ports are set up, the links
between SW3 and SW4 (port 19, 20) will go into blocking because spanning
tree and trunk exists between SW1/SW2, SW1/SW4 and SW2/SW3. this means
VTP will not work between SW3 and SW4 even though it is part of the
requirement of section 1.1
The catch is that even by adjusting port-priority and port-cost to make
the trunks between SW3 and SW4 come up, it will bring down trunk links
between another pair of switches. Because of the way the requirements
are set up (only vlan 102 can traverse between SW1 and SW4), no other
trunk links can be brought down without losing connectivity for at least
one vlan.
The only solution I can see is PVST which is not part of the solution.
Am I missing something very simple or maybe there is another workaround?
Please comment....
Thanks a lot...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Dec 01 2006 - 08:05:47 ART