[c-nsp] cisco-nsp Digest, Vol 140, Issue 11
Ruddy RAMOTHE
ruddy.ramothe at mediaserv.com
Tue Jul 8 12:18:06 EDT 2014
That's work !
I configured the trunk, On the associated Ethernet Interface.
I need 802.1Q, because I want multiple services.
Thanks
Ruddy
-----Message d'origine-----
De : cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] De la part de cisco-nsp-request at puck.nether.net
Envoyé : mardi 8 juillet 2014 11:14
À : cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Objet : cisco-nsp Digest, Vol 140, Issue 11
Send cisco-nsp mailing list submissions to
cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
cisco-nsp-request at puck.nether.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
cisco-nsp-owner at puck.nether.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of cisco-nsp digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Divide large PVST domain? (Victor Sudakov)
2. Re: Divide large PVST domain? (Antonio Soares)
3. Re: Divide large PVST domain? (Victor Sudakov)
4. Re: Configure 802.1Q on HWIC-4SHDSL-E (Gert Doering)
5. Re: How to calculate transceiver power of SFP on 7200 series?
(Rob Seastrom)
6. Re: Divide large PVST domain? (JC Cockburn)
7. Re: Divide large PVST domain? (Antonio Soares)
8. Re: Divide large PVST domain? (Victor Sudakov)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 16:09:06 +0700
From: Victor Sudakov <vas at mpeks.tomsk.su>
To: cisco-nsp <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Subject: [c-nsp] Divide large PVST domain?
Message-ID: <20140708090906.GA4332 at admin.sibptus.tomsk.ru>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Colleagues,
I have a train of about 20 C3560X switches connected successively.
I know such a diameter is not good for STP, however, when I place the root bridge in the middle of the train, PVST still works more or less reliably.
However, if I wanted to divide this single STP domain into several smaller ones, which way is best?
I can define three geographical areas between which no loop is physically possible and which cannot have any redundant links between one another.
Should I just configure a bpdufilter on the border switches to separate the areas, or is there a smarter way, maybe going for MST instead of PVST?
Thanks in advance for any input.
--
Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN
sip:sudakov at sibptus.tomsk.ru
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 10:29:52 +0100
From: "Antonio Soares" <amsoares at netcabo.pt>
To: "'Victor Sudakov'" <vas at mpeks.tomsk.su>, "'cisco-nsp'"
<cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Divide large PVST domain?
Message-ID: <001401cf9a8f$2ff8f780$8feae680$@pt>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MST is the way to go. It was designed with that in mind. Check this:
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/lan-switching/spanning-tree-protoc
ol/24248-147.html
You just need to be careful because there are two MST flavors running on
cisco switches: pre-standard and standard.
Regards,
Antonio Soares, CCIE #18473 (RS/SP)
amsoares at netcabo.pt
http://www.ccie18473.net
-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
Victor Sudakov
Sent: ter?a-feira, 8 de Julho de 2014 10:09
To: cisco-nsp
Subject: [c-nsp] Divide large PVST domain?
Colleagues,
I have a train of about 20 C3560X switches connected successively.
I know such a diameter is not good for STP, however, when I place the root
bridge in the middle of the train, PVST still works more or less reliably.
However, if I wanted to divide this single STP domain into several smaller
ones, which way is best?
I can define three geographical areas between which no loop is physically
possible and which cannot have any redundant links between one another.
Should I just configure a bpdufilter on the border switches to separate the
areas, or is there a smarter way, maybe going for MST instead of PVST?
Thanks in advance for any input.
--
Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN
sip:sudakov at sibptus.tomsk.ru
_______________________________________________
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/
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 17:39:52 +0700
From: Victor Sudakov <vas at mpeks.tomsk.su>
To: Antonio Soares <amsoares at netcabo.pt>
Cc: 'cisco-nsp' <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Divide large PVST domain?
Message-ID: <20140708103952.GA7951 at admin.sibptus.tomsk.ru>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Antonio Soares wrote:
> >
> > I have a train of about 20 C3560X switches connected successively.
> > I know such a diameter is not good for STP, however, when I place the root
> > bridge in the middle of the train, PVST still works more or less reliably.
> >
> > However, if I wanted to divide this single STP domain into several smaller
> > ones, which way is best?
> >
> > I can define three geographical areas between which no loop is physically
> > possible and which cannot have any redundant links between one another.
> >
> > Should I just configure a bpdufilter on the border switches to separate the
> > areas, or is there a smarter way, maybe going for MST instead of PVST?
> MST is the way to go. It was designed with that in mind. Check this:
>
> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/lan-switching/spanning-tree-protocol/24248-147.html
"Cisco recommends that you place as many switches as possible into a
single region; it is not advantageous to segment a network into
separate regions"
I wonder if MST has any limits on the network diameter.
--
Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN
sip:sudakov at sibptus.tomsk.ru
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 14:16:54 +0200
From: Gert Doering <gert at greenie.muc.de>
To: Tarko Tikan <tarko at lanparty.ee>
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Configure 802.1Q on HWIC-4SHDSL-E
Message-ID: <20140708121654.GO1118 at greenie.muc.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 12:05:22AM +0300, Tarko Tikan wrote:
> >As a background: there's carriers that require you to tag the traffic
> >on the carrier side. Stupid idea? dunno. Breaking all sort of CPEs?
> >betcha!
>
> He requested config for EFM (bonding). EFM and VDSL2 both have ethernet
> encapsulation and use vlan tags instead ATM PVCs.
>
> Stupid? Don't think so.
Why require a vlan tag if there's only a single service on it?
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: 291 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20140708/e267dada/attachment-0001.sig>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 08:36:03 -0400
From: Rob Seastrom <rs at seastrom.com>
To: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner at cluebyfour.org>
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] How to calculate transceiver power of SFP on 7200
series?
Message-ID: <86egxwqb7w.fsf at valhalla.seastrom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
"Justin M. Streiner" <streiner at cluebyfour.org> writes:
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2014, PlaWanSai RMUTT CPE IX wrote:
>
>> TGN#sho int g0/1 tra
>>
>> TX power 3888800 nW / 5 dBm (+/- 3dBm)
>>
>> What is power in dBm?
>
> Assuming nW is nanowatts (1 billionth of a watt):
> 3888800 nW = .0038888 watts
>
> .0038888 watts = approx 5.898 dBm.
>
> If that "/5 dBm" means the result from above should be divided by 5,
> then the actual transmit power would be a bit under +1.2 dBm.
It means that 3888800 nW is approximately 5 dBm; note the tolerance
immediately afterward of +/- 3 dBm. Clearly the number of significant
digits one would expect from the first measurement is a bit of a fib.
(Nanowatts? That's right up there with the n00bs who talk about
nanofarads instead of picofarads and fractional microfarads. Just
because an SI unit exists doesn't mean it's sane to express a value in
terms of it when the industry standard is something markedly
different. But I digress...)
> Without knowing what type of transceiver you have, I don't know if
> that's in the expected range.
In practical terms, with just about all optics available in the normal
channels of trade, +5 is "a little hot, but might work". The wisdom
of giving it a shot if you don't have an attenuator handy is dependent
on how hard it will be to add an attenuator in the future.
Basement/office vs. datacenter vs. datacenter-on-another-continent =
entirely different calculus.
At gigabit (the interface at hand), ZX optics want 0 to +5, EX wants
-1 to +3, everything else seems happy with an upper limit of about -3.
My recollection is that 10ge is similar. Note that these are spec
values; just as I've seen gigabit ethernet on copper working great at
distances of over 500 feet, it's entirely possible that you can "get
away with" +5.
Is the interface throwing errors? Getting the speeds you expected?
> Note: Google found this for me:
> http://www.rapidtables.com/convert/power/Watt_to_dBm.htm
dBm is decibels (log scale) referenced to 1 milliwatt. 0 dBm is 1
milliwatt. +3 dB refers to a doubling of power.
Note that the fundamental unit is the "bel", not the "decibel", and
one should be very careful when looking at equations to make sure what
the expected input is. Yes, I have gotten wildly incorrect results
from RF path loss calculations by overlooking this minor detail. :)
-r
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 15:00:27 +0200
From: "JC Cockburn" <ccie15385 at gmail.com>
To: "'Victor Sudakov'" <vas at mpeks.tomsk.su>, "'Antonio Soares'"
<amsoares at netcabo.pt>
Cc: 'cisco-nsp' <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Divide large PVST domain?
Message-ID: <005201cf9aac$99aabe30$cd003a90$@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi All,
Might be a dumb response, but what about REP?
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/switches/lan/catalyst3560/software/rele
ase/15-0_2_se/configuration/guide/scg3560/swrep.html
seems legit???
Ciao
JC
-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
Victor Sudakov
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 12:40 PM
To: Antonio Soares
Cc: 'cisco-nsp'
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Divide large PVST domain?
Antonio Soares wrote:
> >
> > I have a train of about 20 C3560X switches connected successively.
> > I know such a diameter is not good for STP, however, when I place
> > the root bridge in the middle of the train, PVST still works more or
less reliably.
> >
> > However, if I wanted to divide this single STP domain into several
> > smaller ones, which way is best?
> >
> > I can define three geographical areas between which no loop is
> > physically possible and which cannot have any redundant links between
one another.
> >
> > Should I just configure a bpdufilter on the border switches to
> > separate the areas, or is there a smarter way, maybe going for MST
instead of PVST?
> MST is the way to go. It was designed with that in mind. Check this:
>
> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/lan-switching/spanning-tree-
> protocol/24248-147.html
"Cisco recommends that you place as many switches as possible into a single
region; it is not advantageous to segment a network into separate regions"
I wonder if MST has any limits on the network diameter.
--
Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN
sip:sudakov at sibptus.tomsk.ru
_______________________________________________
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/
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 15:58:41 +0100
From: "Antonio Soares" <amsoares at netcabo.pt>
To: "'Victor Sudakov'" <vas at mpeks.tomsk.su>
Cc: 'cisco-nsp' <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Divide large PVST domain?
Message-ID: <004b01cf9abd$1ba6dad0$52f49070$@pt>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Check this article:
http://slaptijack.com/networking/max-spanning-tree-stp-diameter/
Regards,
Antonio Soares, CCIE #18473 (RS/SP)
amsoares at netcabo.pt
http://www.ccie18473.net
-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
Victor Sudakov
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 12:40 PM
To: Antonio Soares
Cc: 'cisco-nsp'
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Divide large PVST domain?
Antonio Soares wrote:
> >
> > I have a train of about 20 C3560X switches connected successively.
> > I know such a diameter is not good for STP, however, when I place
> > the root bridge in the middle of the train, PVST still works more or
less reliably.
> >
> > However, if I wanted to divide this single STP domain into several
> > smaller ones, which way is best?
> >
> > I can define three geographical areas between which no loop is
> > physically possible and which cannot have any redundant links
> > between
one another.
> >
> > Should I just configure a bpdufilter on the border switches to
> > separate the areas, or is there a smarter way, maybe going for MST
instead of PVST?
> MST is the way to go. It was designed with that in mind. Check this:
>
> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/lan-switching/spanning-tree-
> protocol/24248-147.html
"Cisco recommends that you place as many switches as possible into a single
region; it is not advantageous to segment a network into separate regions"
I wonder if MST has any limits on the network diameter.
--
Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN
sip:sudakov at sibptus.tomsk.ru
_______________________________________________
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/
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 22:13:35 +0700
From: Victor Sudakov <vas at mpeks.tomsk.su>
To: JC Cockburn <ccie15385 at gmail.com>
Cc: 'cisco-nsp' <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Divide large PVST domain?
Message-ID: <20140708151335.GA13026 at admin.sibptus.tomsk.ru>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
JC Cockburn wrote:
> Hi All,
> Might be a dumb response, but what about REP?
>
> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/switches/lan/catalyst3560/software/rele
> ase/15-0_2_se/configuration/guide/scg3560/swrep.html
>
> seems legit???
Isn't it for ring topologies?
I have a "train" topology with some redundant links between
neighboring switches.
I have also considered FlexLinks but came to the conclusion that STP
was safer.
--
Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN
sip:sudakov at sibptus.tomsk.ru
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list
cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
------------------------------
End of cisco-nsp Digest, Vol 140, Issue 11
******************************************
More information about the cisco-nsp
mailing list