[c-nsp] quick spanning tree question
Tassos Chatzithomaoglou
achatz at forthnet.gr
Sat Mar 27 05:51:01 EDT 2010
Unless the other side of Gi0/46 is blocked, i don't think it's an issue
to see traffic on a designated port.
On the other hand, if this switch has dual uplinks to the pri/sec root
switches, then somewhere else there must be a blocked port.
--
Tassos
Cord MacLeod wrote on 27/03/2010 08:47:
> 3 days ago traffic started showing up on the trunk port connecting my top of rack switches. Each of these switches has it's own better trunk path to the root bridge. I can't see why any traffic at all would traverse these links unless the other trunk on g0/45 was down, which it isn't. Also, spanning tree doesn't claim any topology changes.
>
> switch3#sh spanning-tree root port
> VLAN0001 GigabitEthernet0/45
> VLAN0100 GigabitEthernet0/45
> VLAN0101 GigabitEthernet0/45
> VLAN0102 GigabitEthernet0/45
> VLAN0120 GigabitEthernet0/45
> VLAN0200 GigabitEthernet0/45
> VLAN0231 GigabitEthernet0/45
> VLAN0250 GigabitEthernet0/45
> VLAN0321 GigabitEthernet0/45
> VLAN0450 GigabitEthernet0/45
> VLAN0777 GigabitEthernet0/45
> VLAN0888 GigabitEthernet0/45
> switch3#
>
> All vlans read same the Root and Desg port.
>
> VLAN0101
> Spanning tree enabled protocol ieee
> Root ID Priority 24677
> Address 0017.e1d6.e111
> Cost 4
> Port 45 (GigabitEthernet0/45)
> Hello Time 2 sec Max Age 20 sec Forward Delay 15 sec
>
> Bridge ID Priority 32869 (priority 32768 sys-id-ext 101)
> Address 001e.1494.4000
> Hello Time 2 sec Max Age 20 sec Forward Delay 15 sec
> Aging Time 300
>
> Interface Role Sts Cost Prio.Nbr Type
> ---------------- ---- --- --------- -------- --------------------------------
> Gi0/45 Root FWD 4 128.45 P2p
> Gi0/46 Desg FWD 4 128.46 P2p
>
> Any ideas?
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
More information about the cisco-nsp
mailing list