From: Rich Collins (nilsi2002@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Oct 03 2007 - 12:06:54 ART
I would say your first choice is easier and cleaner if you are allowed to
configure on both switches. I would use the second method if you are not
allowed to touch one switch and have to then modify cost or port-priority.
Actually I have a question to the first method.
It is preferable to set priority 0 or set to root?
Rich
On 9/29/07, slevin kremera <slevin.kremera@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There is a mst configuration between sw1-sw2-sw3 and there are 2
> instances.Also there is etherchannel pagp configured between these 3
>
> instance 1 13-14-15
> instance 2 16-17-18..........
>
> i want instance 1 to take one etherchannel and instance 2 to take
> other.Myconfusion is..shud i set spanning-tree mst 1 priorty 0 on sw1
> and instance 2
> priority 0 on switch 2
>
> or
>
> go to etherchannel 1 in sw1 and set instance 1 with lower priority
> goto etherchannel 2 in sw1 and set instance 2 with lower priority
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Nov 16 2007 - 13:11:11 ART