From: mahmoud genidy (ccie.mahmoud@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Dec 22 2008 - 11:34:16 ARST
I agree with what you have said. But what I mean by my question is regarding
the end result, there will be any difference between the two methods?
In other words does any if we used priority 0 for the switch SW1, in this
way we don't give ANY chance for other switches to become root switch as
long as SW1 is up and running. On the other hand if we used SW1 root switch
primary, in this case other switches can become root switch if accidentally
any body manually set its priority to lower value than SW1.
Am I correct?
Mahmoud
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 12:22 AM, Wouter Prins <wp@null0.nl> wrote:
> Yes there is, when you configure it according to 1. the switch will
> substract 4096 from the current root's priority in your network. (So
> it's cabled and working etc :)). For two you're just setting it to
> priority 0, i wouldnt use that value tho, however i think it should be
> possible.
>
> HTH,
> Wouter
>
> 2008/12/22 mahmoud genidy <ccie.mahmoud@gmail.com>:
> > Hi Team,
> >
> > Any difference between using these two ways of setting the SWITCH as a
> STP
> > ROOT for specific MST instance or VLAN:
> >
> > 1- Using the [ Root switch primary ]
> > 2- Or setting the switch priority as 0
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mahmud.
> >
> >
> > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jan 01 2009 - 12:53:09 ARST