RE: Tuning STP timers : IPexpert versus IE

From: Darren Johnson (dazza_johnson@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Sat Jan 12 2008 - 18:09:30 ARST


My test was the same as your Frank. I would do it based on the FWD-delay
timer - BUT, I would also prove it with a debug so that I was 100%
convinced. To do the debug would only take a couple of minutes anyway...

Take it easy all

Dazzler

-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Frank CCIE
Sent: 11 January 2008 04:41
To: Scott Morris
Cc: wim.depauw@getronics.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Tuning STP timers : IPexpert versus IE

Hi,

I did the test on Cat 3560. No port-fast is configured in port-level
or global level for access-port.

After plugging a cable into new configured access port, the port
immediately -> "Listening", without staying "Block" for 20 second.

It takes 30 second (listening time + learning time) to forward state.

Is it new in 3560? Did anybody test it in 3550?

(I tested on trunk port. After plug a cable to trunk port, the port ->
listening state immediately too).

Thanks

Frank

======================
CAT2(config-if)#do sh run int f0/11
Building configuration...
!
interface FastEthernet0/11
 switchport access vlan 100
end

CAT2# debug spann event

CAT2#
02:13:36: set portid: VLAN0100 Fa0/11: new port id 800D
02:13:36: STP: VLAN0100 Fa0/11 -> listening
CAT2#
02:13:38: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface FastEthernet0/11, changed state to up
02:13:39: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface
FastEthernet0/11, changed state to up
CAT2#
02:13:51: STP: VLAN0100 Fa0/11 -> learning
CAT2#
02:14:06: STP: VLAN0100 Fa0/11 -> forwarding
CAT2#

On Jan 9, 2008 11:46 PM, Scott Morris <smorris@ipexpert.com> wrote:
> If you have an access-port with no BPDU's (e.g. portfast) then you are
> correct that it's just listening + learning. if you aren't doing portfast
> and it's the first time the port is coming online, it will be blocking (20
> sec) + listening + learning. Maxage has nothing to do with this part
> (although it too equals 20 seconds, so I can understand the confusion)
>
> Perspective. It's all about perspective.
>
> HTH,
>
>
> Scott Morris, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713,
JNCIE-M
> #153, JNCIS-ER, CISSP, et al.
> CCSI/JNCI-M/JNCI-ER
> VP - Technical Training - IPexpert, Inc.
> IPexpert Sr. Technical Instructor
>
> A Cisco Learning Partner - We Accept Learning Credits!
>
> smorris@ipexpert.com
>
>
>
> Telephone: +1.810.326.1444
> Fax: +1.810.454.0130
> http://www.ipexpert.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> wim.depauw@getronics.com
> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 2:09 PM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Tuning STP timers : IPexpert versus IE
>
> Hi,
>
> When you get the following question :
>
> - Configre your switch so that the hosts come online in 34 sec
>
> I would configure it with the following command
>
> - spanning-tree vlan X forward-time 17 sec
>
>
> I did a test with this command and it seems to work , but in the ipexpert
v9
> lab 40 they configure it like this :
>
> spanning-tree vlan X forward-time 7 sec , I presume they use also the
> max-age timer so then the sum will be 34 sec .
>
> BUT
>
> for a normal access-port with portfast configured you will not send any
BPDU
> so you shouldn't count the max-age timer.
>
> I saw an example in the IE workbook and they configure it on my way
>
> I was wondering if the guru's don't come the same solution how would the
> would-like-to-be CCIE's find the correct solution :-))
>
> Any opinions ??
>
>
> PS : A second question , do I need to calculate in this time also the
hello
> time or is this not necessary ?
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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 : Fri Feb 01 2008 - 10:37:59 ARST