<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>Thank you for your clarification. Do you have any supporting documentation?</div><div><br></div><div>Thank you.<br><br>Kind Regards,<div>Mark</div></div><div><br>On 14/12/2010, at 9:40 AM, Shrini <<a href="mailto:linuxboss.9@gmail.com">linuxboss.9@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<font size="-1"><font face="Verdana">Mark,<br>
<br>
You are absolutely correct. Voice VLAN ID should be lowest than
other VLANs.<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
Shrini<br>
</font></font><br>
On 12/13/2010 2:11 PM, mark bunch wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:AANLkTi=vapBZCnbdtsBqfYKF10Rbgq=qXb_qanUOpToX@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">
<div>Hi All,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I was hoping that someone could help me...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I was having a conversion with someone regarding what is best
practice when it comes to assigning a voice VLAN, should the
voice VLAN be a lower ID then the data VLAN.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>My thoughts on this was yes as spanning tree would process
the lower IDs faster and hence converging the voice VLAN before
the data VLAN.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>What are your thoughts on this and does anyone have a
reference link proving this in one way or the other?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thanks.</div>
<pre><fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ipexpert.com"><a href="http://www.ipexpert.com">www.ipexpert.com</a></a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div></blockquote></body></html>