[c-nsp] backup with STP
mt at primats.org.ua
Wed Sep 28 09:03:09 EDT 2005
I don't need stp instance per vlan, I need compatibily with old dot1q
switch that support the simplest stp (802.1d) - it get two links (with
group of dot1q vlans) and will switch on these ports using stp.
Does mst be compatible with old stp implementation?
On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 21:43 +1000, David J. Hughes wrote:
> The only words I would say about MST are - DON'T GO THERE.
> If your environment is capable of running Rapid PVST then it is
> certainly what you want to be running. RPVST+ extends the PVST+ that
> you know and love to include rapid response to topology changes. MST
> gives you a totally different set of semantics (and issues/problems) to
> get your head around. Remember you no longer have an STP instance per
> vlan. The interaction with anything in your network that doesn't speak
> MST can be troublesome and "interesting" to say the least. RPVST+ is
> the end-game and MST was a bump in the road on the way.
> On 28/09/2005, at 9:11 PM, Maxim Tuliuk wrote:
> >could you say some words about mstp? is it better or worse than
> >On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 7:40 -0400, Dave Temkin wrote:
> >>Yes, rapid-pvst and regular STP are directly inter-compatible. The
> >>rapid-pvst switch will run in regular STP mode for the ports
> >>connected to
> >>the client switch.
> >>David Temkin
> >>On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Maxim Tuliuk wrote:
> >>>Our client connects to us using switch and two different fiber links.
> >>>Client's switch supports Spanning Tree (802.1D) only, on my side -
> >>>3550 (now: mode rapid-pvst).
> >>>Can I build L2 backup using stp?
> >Maxim Tuliuk
> >WWW: http://primats.org.ua/~mt/
> >ICQ: 21134222
> >The bike is absolute freedom of moving
> >cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> >archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
The bike is absolute freedom of moving
More information about the cisco-nsp