From: Darby Weaver (darbyweaver@yahoo.com)
Date: Sun Apr 15 2007 - 23:27:46 ART
And Bob does tell this to his students...
And Bruce follows it up with the spill on "Truth by
Debug"...
And the whole team reminds their students be careful
of everything you read...
And they are right!!!
--- Bob Sinclair <bob@bobsinclair.net> wrote:
> Gregory Gombas wrote:
> > Thanks for the clarification Bob.
> >
> > Yes I was able to observe the differences between
> global bpdufilter
> > and interface level bpdufilter and it works as you
> described.
> >
> > As far as differences between 3550 and 3560 with
> regards to portfast,
> > I was not able to replicate your scenario:
> Hi Greg,
>
> YUP! I retested and found exactly the result you
> have; the 3550 DID
> disable portfast with receipt of a bpdu without any
> extra bpdufilter
> configuration.
>
> Here is where I think I went wrong in my previous
> test: the portfasted
> port was a DESIGNATED port, and so did not receive
> any bpdus (they only
> send once roles are determined.) I should have
> tested on a root port
> to keep it simple!
>
> When I added the global bpdufilter, the designated
> port stopped sending
> bpdus. After 20 seconds, the other side sent a
> bpdu claiming to be
> root. This triggered the portfast disable on the
> portfasted side, it
> stopped filtering and sent a bpdu to override the
> inferior one sent.
> So, by testing on a designated port, adding the
> global bpdufilter
> caused the other side to eventually send a bpdu.
> DOH!
>
>
> As I always tell my students: believe none of what
> you hear and only
> half of what you "see."
>
>
> Thanks! :-)
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Bob Sinclair CCIE 10427 CCSI 30427
> www.netmasterclass.net
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue May 01 2007 - 08:28:35 ART