From: Darby Weaver (darbyweaver@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Oct 03 2007 - 22:08:16 ART
Very nicely put Joseph... and very concise.
Those Brians - what will they think of next..
I just purchased their IEWB lab walkthroughs and they
are doing a very good job of explaining the why's
behind their every move so far and they even explain
why they did not take other options as well.
This is very, very good product for anyone who ever
wondered why something was done or not done in a given
workbook's methodology - like me.
And I know I'm not alone, since many of on this list
post questions everyday that a product with this much
detail plainly and clearly answers...
Kudos to the Brians aka Brains for this innovative
offering to one's CCIE success...
Well... I gotta get come alive...
--- Joseph Brunner <joe@affirmedsystems.com> wrote:
> Yikes! I'm a NCO and Brian's a 4-star general, but
> anyway.
>
>
>
> As a student of Brian's VOL II. Workbook dojo I
> learned we change stp PORT
> PRI to influence root path selection going
> downstream (root to leaf), while
> we influence COST to influence root path selection
> going upstream (leaf to
> root). Just remember COST is added OUT of a port as
> the BPDU leaves the
> bridge its added.
>
>
>
> As far as setting root bridge.
>
>
>
> Read the task. it may say something like "Sw2 should
> be the root for odd
> vlans, while sw3 is the root for even vlans. Each
> switch will become
> secondary for the other root bridge's vlans (I.E.
> Sw3 will be root for odd
> vlans if switch 2 is unavailable)".
>
>
>
> Right then, we can determine
>
> 1. we need to always beat sw1 & sw4 that wont ever
> be any vlan's root
> 2. we can use spanning-tree vlan 1,3,5 root primary
> on sw2 and
> spanning-tree vlan 2,4,6 root secondary on sw 2 also
> (the opposite on sw3).
>
>
>
> My other recommendation is don't let MST throw your
> for a loop. Each
> instance's root port selection is tweaked with the
>
> spanning-tree mst 2,4 cost 250 (notice its per
> INSTANCE)
> spanning-tree mst 2,4 port-priority 0 (notice its
> per INSTANCE)
>
> Whereas the non-MST commands are per vlan for the
> same thing.
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: slevin kremera
> [mailto:slevin.kremera@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 7:45 PM
> To: Rich Collins
> Cc: Cisco certification; Joseph Brunner; Brian
> Dennis
> Subject: Re: mst priority
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Nov 16 2007 - 13:11:11 ART