From: slevin kremera (slevin.kremera@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Oct 03 2007 - 20:44:49 ART
that was my second doubt too
joe /Brian ur thoughts
On 10/3/07, Rich Collins <nilsi2002@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I would say your first choice is easier and cleaner if you are allowed to
> configure on both switches. I would use the second method if you are not
> allowed to touch one switch and have to then modify cost or port-priority.
>
> Actually I have a question to the first method.
> It is preferable to set priority 0 or set to root?
>
> Rich
>
>
> On 9/29/07, slevin kremera <slevin.kremera@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > There is a mst configuration between sw1-sw2-sw3 and there are 2
> > instances.Also there is etherchannel pagp configured between these 3
> >
> > instance 1 13-14-15
> > instance 2 16-17-18..........
> >
> > i want instance 1 to take one etherchannel and instance 2 to take
> > other.Myconfusion is..shud i set spanning-tree mst 1 priorty 0 on sw1
> > and instance 2
> > priority 0 on switch 2
> >
> > or
> >
> > go to etherchannel 1 in sw1 and set instance 1 with lower priority
> > goto etherchannel 2 in sw1 and set instance 2 with lower priority
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Nov 16 2007 - 13:11:11 ART