From: Joseph Brunner (joe@affirmedsystems.com)
Date: Sun Jul 27 2008 - 17:10:39 ART
I think we need to remember that the PVST+ messages are sent as well known
multicast frames over a CST cloud.
Refer to this document;
http://blog.internetworkexpert.com/2008/07/17/pvst-explained/
In the case of your native vlan being untagged;
The provider should send that traffic anyway also q-in-q tagged. Have you
played with "vlan dot1q tag native" (a global command)
Thanks,
Joe
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Igor
Manassypov
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 10:01 AM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: pvst partitioned domain issue
Hi Gang,
I got a peculiar issue where I am simply port-channeling/trunking between
two 6500's across my provider's two lines which are q-in-q.
One side is a vtp server, the other is a client. The vlan database gets
across the trunk just fine, the md hash and version are correct on either
end. The pcs' on either end are communicating across those vlans correctly,
however my pvst appears to be partitioned at the trunking interfaces. Both
of my switches assume root roles.
I am sort of running out of ideas here... I would appreciate if someone
could point me in the direction to eliminate this partitioning. My encap is
dot1q, not tagging native vlans, portchanneling is hard on... Is it possible
that my native vlan being untagged gets filtered by provider?
Thanks!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Aug 04 2008 - 06:11:57 ART