From: Anthony Sequeira (Anthony_Sequeira@skillsoft.com)
Date: Sat Aug 16 2008 - 03:46:19 ART
LOL
NEVER TRUST A CISCO PRESS AUTHOR.
Yeah, I guess the idea was, you are pasting in a new instance to VLAN
table on each of your switches and you cannot remember if you got one.
You look and see the revision number is off and you immediately know.
Newbies to Cisco switches unfortunately always confuse this value with
the configuration revision number in VTP. I guess I would like it better
if they named it "damn it, I forgot a switch."
While we are on the subject...why is it VLAN Trunking Protocol and not
VLAN Management Protocol? I know VTP messages require trunks to traverse
devices but come on!
Boolshit. :-)
________________________________
From: shiran guez [mailto:shiranp3@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2008 1:43 AM
To: Hobbs
Cc: Anthony Sequeira; Cisco certification
Subject: Re: MSTP Revision Number
Hi Anthony
the cisco press explenation looks like boolshit, as I do not think any
one in there right mind will go trough there all network and will reset
there revision number if they did a change, personally this is somthing
I am setting only once just to make sure all match and that is it.
as I see it there is no other rational behind that, they all need to
match in your spanning tree domain.
On 8/16/08, Hobbs <deadheadblues@gmail.com> wrote:
This is from the cisco press bcmsn book page 278:
"The configuration revision number gives you a means of tracking changes
to the MST region configuration. Each time you make changes to the
configuration, you should increase the number by one. Remember that the
region configuration (including the revision number) must match on all
switches in the region. Therefore, you also need to update the revision
numbers on the other switches to match."
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Anthony Sequeira <
Anthony_Sequeira@skillsoft.com> wrote:
> A student asked me today about the reasoning behind this third
> configuration component that must match between MSTP devices. He was
> curious about the rationale behind it, when it would seem that
matching
> domain names and VLAN/instance tables would be enough.
>
>
>
> Has anyone seen the rationale documented? My guess would be to
> facilitate a reconfiguration of the topology...
>
>
>
> Anthony J Sequeira
>
> #15626
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 01 2008 - 08:15:30 ART