From: Carlos Trujillo Jimenez (nergal888@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Dec 12 2007 - 18:33:38 ART
well, Dynamically talking... you can prevent other switches to become the
root switch using rootguard feature, thus safeguading your entire spanning
tree domain or topology, against a new connected switch who is trying to
become the root switch. when a rootguard enabled interface recibes bettwe
bpdus than its own root switch, the port is inmediately disabled.
>From: Cielieska Nathan <ncielieska@gmail.com>
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Dec 2007 21:16:02.0813 (UTC)
>FILETIME=[3331E2D0:01C83D04]
>
>George,
>
>That is interesting. Thanks for the feedback.. if that is the case
>then i would be a little concerned with the question:
>
> > *SW1 should be set such that it would remain the root if even
> > other switches are added to the network in future
>
>The setting of 4096 wouldn't guarantee that... (another vendor
>switch, etc.)
>
>Is there something i'm missing from a command perspective? Is there
>something dynamic that will react to a spanning-tree priority coming
>in lower than its own?
>
>Nate
>
>
>On Dec 12, 2007, at 3:11 PM, George Goglidze wrote:
>
> > Hi Nathan,
> >
> > It does not actually react dynamically when the new router is added.
> >
> > the "spanning-tree vlan 20,30,40 root primary " is just a script
> > which will check current root switch's priority, and set 4096 less.
> > as well it calculates hello-interval and forward-interval if I'm
> > not mistaken, if you specify your network's size.
> >
> > but once the script is run, and later if you add another switch
> > with better priority,
> > it does not mean you will have your router re-calculate the
> > priority again.
> >
> > And as to the initial question, I'd just put 4096 as priority and
> > that's it.
> > also maybe I would ask proctor if new switches are going to have
> > default configuration of spanning tree or not.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> > On Dec 12, 2007 8:22 PM, Cielieska Nathan <ncielieska@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > Felix
> >
> > Do a spanning-tree vlan 20,30,40 root primary.
> >
> > The reason i would do that is because there are other calculations
> > besides priority that can come into play. Setting the root command
> > will allow the switch to react dynamically to spanning-tree elections
> > by tuning things in its favor to become root.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Nate
> >
> > On Dec 12, 2007, at 12:07 PM, Felix Nkansah wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I am considering a spanning-tree task (dont have the answers tho).
> > >
> > > *It requires that, of the four switches in the network, SW1 be set
> > > as the
> > > root for VLANs 20, 30, 40.*
> > > **
> > > *SW1 should be set such that it would remain the root if even other
> > > switches
> > > are added to the network in future.*
> > >
> > > Would setting a command like *'spanning-tree vlan 20,30,40 priority
> > > 0'* be a
> > > good solution?
> > >
> > > I'm afraid the *'spanning-tree vlan 20,30,40 root primary'* command
> > > may not
> > > be able to cater for the 'future switches' caveat.
> > >
> > > Let me have your expert opinions, please.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Felix
> > >
> > >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > > _
> > > 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 : Tue Jan 01 2008 - 12:04:30 ARST