[c-nsp] Spanning-Tree vs. EoMPLS links in SXI2?

[Mateusz Blaszczyk]

you could probably do something like this

R1 ==(trunk)== Q1 -- R2 --(MPLS cloud)-- R3 -- Q2 ==(trunk)== R4

Where Q1 and Q2 would on the trunk side:
  switchport mode dot1q-tunnel
  switchport access vlan QinQ
  l2tunnel-protocol STP
and then the "tunneled" STP may get forwarded via xconnect.
Specifically Q1-R2 function could be done on R2 with an external loop.

But that is just a workaround not a solution. And I wouldn't do it.
A solution would be to extended mpls towards R1 and R4 but that
probably is not possible.

Best Regards,

-mat


On 11 March 2010 09:09, Gert Doering <gert at greenie.muc.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 06:36:44PM +1000, David Hughes wrote:
>> On 11/03/2010, at 7:33 AM, Gert Doering wrote:
>> > Workaround:
>> > Not to Send BPDU over EOMPLS.
>>
>> What a fantastic work around.  There's a bug that breaks STP so the
>> work around is not to use STP.  Pure genius.
>
> *g*
>
> Actually, this is along the lines of what I expected as one of the
> potential responses from this list - "don't build your redundancy on
> top of STP" (which is why I explained my setup in somewhat more detail).
>
> There are good arguments for avoiding STP - and "less Cisco bugs to hit"
> is certainly one of them... - but still, the workaround is definitely
> worth quoting every now and then :-)
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>