RE: UDLD recommendations

>Surely, in a critical, redundant environment one would configure aggressive mode instead of normal mode?

No because taking a whole link down is a major event in a production network. Your network should get the alerts to peoples smartphones/screens who can fix the issue and determine if further action is required before taking a link down and re-routing traffic to a different layer 2 path.

Also, UDLD is not always very accurate - so you may not want to trust it... I have had it fail on copper many times and think the link was unidirectional, simply because of poor copper links, etc.

You're missing the fact the UDLD feature is not as good at detecting an issue as a qualified person responding to an alert...

"Would you want UDLD to perform brain surgery on your child or a skilled physician?

-Joe

-----Original Message-----
From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Atle Xrn Hardarson
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2011 9:22 AM
To: Ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
Subject: UDLD recommendations

Hi guys

I was reading up on UDLD, and I have always wondered why Cisco recommends
normal mode for UDLD, and not aggressive mode?
Surely, in a critical, redundant environment one would configure aggressive
mode instead of normal mode?
Personally, I would much rather see my network loose a link with UDLD
shutdown of a port, than causing a potential bridging loop in the entire L2
domain.

Can anyone shed some light on this? What am I missing?

Atle

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Sun Sep 11 2011 - 09:01:47 ART