From: Antonio Soares (amsoares@netcabo.pt)
Date: Mon Jul 16 2007 - 11:46:03 ART
Hi Ben,
Thanks for the confirmation. This means that we cannot rely exclusively on
the DocCD examples since, and this is the perfect example, there are some
fundamental errors.
Now imagine that in the lab they ask us to do some type of load-balancing
using the STP Port-Priority but nothing is said about which SW should be the
root for those vlans.
I see at least two options:
1) Force the switch where we are going to configure the spanning-tree
port-priority settings to be the root.
2) Configure spanning-tree port-priority on both switches.
The third would be "ask the proctor" :)
Opinions about this ?
Thanks,
Antonio
_____
From: Ben [mailto:bmunyao@gmail.com]
Sent: segunda-feira, 16 de Julho de 2007 15:35
To: Antonio Soares
Cc: Group study
Subject: Re: Configuring Trunk Ports for Load Sharing
Antonio,
You are correct. port-priority in the first example is configured on
SwitchA, so it would have to be the root. pathcost is also configured on
SwitchA in the second example, which would require SwitchB to be the root
for that spanning tree optimization.
Ben
On 7/16/07, Antonio Soares <amsoares@netcabo.pt> wrote:
Hello group,
I was reviewing the STP Load Sharing topic and i couldn't believe what i
saw. In the DocCD there are two examples. One using Port-Priority, the other
using Path Cost:
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/cat3560/12237se/scg/swvl
an.htm#wp1139757
But they are missing one fundamental point here: who is the root switch ???
For the Port-Priority example to work, Sw1 must be the root switch.
For the Path Cost example to work, Sw2 must be the root switch.
Please correct me if i'm missing something here.
Thanks,
Antonio
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Aug 18 2007 - 08:17:41 ART