From: Tarun Pahuja (pahujat@gmail.com)
Date: Sat Jan 12 2008 - 14:20:51 ARST
WorkerBee,
As mentioned in the previous posts both solutions will
work. One would be the optimal one and the other could increase the CPU load
on the switch. If prepairing for the CCIE Lab you should be prepared for
both as 2007 networkers presentation on CCIE Voice specifically talks about
it.
In older switches(eg, 3500XL) which did not have the capability to auto
negotiate the VVID, one had to manual set the trunk on the swich port
connected to the phone. Newer switches have the capability to auto negotiate
VVID and hence no need to manual set the trunk.
I still remember receiving a call from one of my clients who was complaining
that his Cat6500 with Sup2 had 72% CPU utilization after Cisco IP Phone
deployment. His mistake was that he configured an entire line card using the
manual trunking method on the cat6500 and added another 100+ STP instances
causing his CPU utilisation to spike. changing the configuration back to
Voice vlan and Access Vlan brought it down to 23%.
HTH,
Tarun
On 1/7/08, WorkerBee <ciscobee@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Which one is more preferred? I have tested both and it works.
> The only difference for F0/2, it runs extra STP VLAN 1 instance.
>
> It seems that F0/1 is less CPU intensive due to lack of DTP, STP VLAN 1,
> faster L2 convergence since it is static port.
>
> Any comments?
>
> Requirement
> =========
> Data : Vlan 10
> Voice : Vlan 110
>
>
> interface FastEthernet0/1
> switchport access vlan 10
> switchport mode access
> switchport voice vlan 110
> spanning-tree portfast
> end
>
>
> interface FastEthernet0/2
> switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
> switchport trunk native vlan 10
> switchport mode trunk
> switchport voice vlan 110
> spanning-tree portfast
> end
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Feb 01 2008 - 10:37:59 ARST