From: Rado Vasilev (decklandv@gmail.com)
Date: Sun Aug 17 2008 - 05:35:23 ART
Not in the near future, that's for sure!
Spanning tree is needed in so many instances where running AToM/VPLS for
providing L2 transport is way too expensive.
Rado
> 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
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>>> Subscription information may be found at:
>>>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>>>
>>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>> Subscription information may be found at:
>>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Shiran Guez
>> MCSE CCNP NCE1 CCIE #20572
>> http://cciep3.blogspot.com
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/cciep3
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> 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 : Mon Sep 01 2008 - 08:15:31 ART