[c-nsp] Maximum spannig tree instances

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 05:35:14PM +0300, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On (2009-07-17 09:09 -0500), Geoffrey Pendery wrote:
>  
> > I'm not trying to say "MST is never useful and always terrible", but rather:
> > "MST doesn't fit all scenarios.  For many scenarios, RPVST is much
> > better, and it's a shame that we've only got an open standard MST,
> > rather than two open standards to cover both scenarios."
> 
> Not arguing against, but would you happen to have example where
> MST does not fit? All my respect to the person who decidedly
> engineers L2 network with more then 65 planned and documented
> topologies[0], and succeeds to deliver higher SLA than what is possible
> with fewer.

See my description on how our datacenter setup looks like.  Every customer
has their own VLAN, and usually the customers have more than one single
device, so the customer brings in their own switch(es).  Customers with
redundant connections have exactly that: redundant connections, multiple
switches, multiple L2 paths, RSTP.

For about every single VLAN, there is a different topology.

gert
-- 
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
                                                           //www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany                             gert at greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025                        gert at net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 304 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20090717/8335715d/attachment.bin>