From: Joe Mama (jsmith1234550@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Sep 17 2007 - 13:56:32 ART
Gents,
Like everything, it all depends! In most large companies (Fortune
100), there a large push towards eliminating STP altogether (and even
pushing for a full MPLS "LAN" down the road....)
Some smaller companies cringe at using L3 switches (3560s, etc.) while
many large companies have been using the 65xx with the 720 for years.
No company is right or wrong; it all depends on the budget...
Anyway, Cisco has some great design guides (free) on their site that
go into proper campus deisgns, etc...they detail just about everything
and are a great resource.
Joe
On 9/13/07, Donghai Zhang <zdh1207@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Thomas,
> In my opinion,there seams to be no such concept as VTP server
> redundency,because no switch need a VTP server to fulfill its own functions.
> If the VTP server in the network is down,for example, the clients work just
> as fine as it has the server not down.
>
>
>
> 2007/9/13, Chris Riling <criling@gmail.com>:
> >
> > I recently came up with a design that used a routed access layer, and have
> > gotten mixed opinions on it. Generally, people that don't like to deal
> > with
> > STP *love* the L3 access model; I heard a rumor at some point that TAC was
> > getting too many STP calls and that's partially why Cisco was pushing this
> > design... One could argue it's inefficient use of IP space maybe? Either
> > way, I get the feeling we're opening Pandora's box with this thread... ;)
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > On 9/11/07, Church, Charles <cchurc05@harris.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Like anything else in the IT world, there are many ways to accomplish
> > > something, and many many more ways to do it poorly! Part of the problem
> > > is that people don't fully understand real-world protocol limits or
> > > hardware limitations. You definitely don't want have 200 access layer
> > > switches all speaking OSPF in the same area, that's just as bad as
> > > having those same 200 switches all participate in the same VLANs. And
> > > every Cisco switch has a maximum number of spanning tree instances it'll
> > > support when in PVST mode. Exceed it, and bad things will happen if you
> > > don't see the log messages. I know Cisco was pushing routing protocols
> > > down to the access layer a couple years ago, but since then, rapid
> > > spanning tree and VTP version 3 have sort of helped those doing L2 down
> > > to the access layer. Although VTP v3 is still a little scarce, software
> > > support-wise... Cisco has a bunch of articles posted about good design
> > > principals and scalability. Those are a great starting point.
> > >
> > > HTH,
> > >
> > > Chuck
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> > > Swan, Jay
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 1:41 PM
> > > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > Subject: RE: VTP Server redundancy ?
> > >
> > > One problem I see with routing to the access layer is the premium price
> > > that Cisco charges for the IP Services image on the 3560 and 3750
> > > switches. If you don't buy it, you're stuck with static routing, RIP, or
> > > trunking.
> > > Jay
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> > > Joseph Brunner
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 10:39 AM
> > > To: 'Tony Blanco'; thomas.rader@freesurf.ch; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > Subject: RE: VTP Server redundancy ?
> > >
> > > Actually you shouldn't design networks that need vlans switched all over
> > > the
> > > place anymore... it's just a bad design. I can tell you first hand all
> > > the
> > > problems I have seen as a consultant these last 2 years fixing messes
> > > almost
> > > daily.
> > >
> > > The best designed network has no trunks; If a company buys layer 2
> > > switches,
> > > the trunks should minimize the number of vlans allowed on the trunks,
> > > and
> > > even then I can't see using more than 2 or 3 vlans per switch. Its 2007
> > > already, we have 3560G's and 3750's like water.
> > >
> > > (I can't wait for the CCDE)
> > >
> > > Joe,
> > > Senior CCDP
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> > > Tony
> > > Blanco
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 12:31 PM
> > > To: thomas.rader@freesurf.ch; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > Subject: Re: VTP Server redundancy ?
> > >
> > > Have multiples VTP servers on your netwok...and get used to make changes
> > > from one......but you can make changes from any one .... remember that
> > > all
> > > your vtp configuration has to be exactly the same....
> > >
> > > blancoj17
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message ----
> > > From: "thomas.rader@freesurf.ch" <thomas.rader@freesurf.ch>
> > > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 11:38:45 AM
> > > Subject: VTP Server redundancy ?
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm hoping someone can help me with VTP Server redundancy.
> > >
> > > Is it was simple as having two VTP servers in a VTP domain, or am I
> > > missing
> > > something ?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Thomas
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________________________________
> > > Subscription information may be found at:
> > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________________________________________________
> > > ____
> > > ________
> > > Need a vacation? Get great deals
> > > to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
> > > http://travel.yahoo.com/
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________________________________
> > > 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
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Oct 06 2007 - 12:01:12 ART