[c-nsp] remove spanning-tree without being service effecting

Peter Rathlev peter at rathlev.dk
Thu Aug 2 14:13:05 EDT 2012

On Thu, 2012-08-02 at 08:40 -0700, Pete Templin wrote:
> He clearly said 'just as a backup'.  You clearly said "without
> driving to each site".  What do you want?  Get over it, there's risk
> involved in what you want to do (that risk entered as soon as you
> chose to remove STP, maybe as soon as you thought of it), you might
> want to implement a safety net. 

On Thu, 2012-08-02 at 11:24 -0500, James Urwiller wrote:
> if you don't have anything good to say; then don't.  Im sure the forum
> doesn't need your attitude, I know I don't.

Huh? You're seriously writing that? As a reply to what Pete wrote? I
need Pete's attitude a hell of a lot more than I need yours.

Converting between STP protocols (ieee/pvst/rapid-pvst) just can't be
done without convergence time. What "service effecting" is for people
might vary. I personally consider more than 50ms as service effecting.

Chuck wrote solid advice, what I'd consider simple best practice. That's
the way people do it. You reply:

On Thu, 2012-08-02 at 10:18 -0500, James Urwiller wrote:
> That kind of defeats the whole "not service effecting" issue.. thanks
> anyway. 

Now tell me, who has an attitude problem?


More information about the cisco-nsp mailing list