From: keith tokash (ktokash@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Aug 18 2008 - 15:02:47 ART
STP is a great protocol if you use it for what it was designed to do - shut
down loops. Most companies (mine included) have stretched it to provide
redundancy/failover, or even load-balancing. BAD KITTY.
I think that I shall never see
A graph more lovely than a tree.
A tree whose crucial property
Is loop-free connectivity.
A tree which must be sure to span
So packets can reach every LAN.
First the Root must be selected
By ID it is elected.
Least cost paths from Root are traced
In the tree these paths are placed.
A mesh is made by folks like me
Then bridges find a spanning tree.
-- Radia Pearlman
The information in this e-mail is intended for the
attention and use of the everyone in the world, or I wouldn't have sent it in
an unencrypted email. This message or any part thereof can and should be
disclosed, copied, distributed and retained by any person without
authorization from the addressee. Furthermore, I reserve the right to
disclose, copy, distribute and retain anything anyone sends *me* via email, up
to and including putting the exact text in a MySpace bulletin.
> Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 23:25:44 -0700
> From: narbikk@gmail.com
> To: joe@affirmedsystems.com
> Subject: Re: MSTP Revision Number
> CC: shiranp3@gmail.com; deadheadblues@gmail.com;
Anthony_Sequeira@skillsoft.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>
> When you look at the new VSS blades for 6500 series and/or stackable 3750s
> you wonder when will Spanning tree go out all together.
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Joseph Brunner
<joe@affirmedsystems.com>wrote:
>
> > A better question is who the hell in 2008 is designing a network with
large
> > spanning-tree's that require the MSTP functionality?
> >
> > I generally create vlans only locally on a switch for intra-switch
> > isolation
> > of traffic, then create EIGRP routed ports, either routed layer 3
> > interfaces, or layer 3 port channels...
> >
> > -Joe
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> > shiran guez
> > 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 - 08:15:31 ART