Rapid - we had VLANs that needed to be available across multiple access layer closets and still have normal client traffic be routed so there were trunks between an access layer switch and 2 core switches. 1 VLAN on the trunk would be point-to-point of sorts and only used for routing; the other VLANs would be available for whatever traffic needed them and reach their gateway in the core. Having CST enabled on the core would shut down all VLANs on the blocking side (including the 'routing' VLAN) and routing adjacencies couldn't form until STP converged from a link failure. We turned off STP in the core and allowed PVST at the access layer to block ports in the VLANs with loops.
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Matt Hill <[email protected]> wrote: > Was this Rapid or MST not talking well with previous iterations of > Spanning-tree or just in general? > > Cheers, > Matt > > CCIE #22386 > CCSI #31207 > > On 5 November 2010 23:18, Jay Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > > I've had to disable STP on other vendor's equipment because CST didn't > play > > well with what we were doing over the trunks. > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:55 AM, Matt Hill <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Thats not bad. > >> > >> I remember turning up to a customer and their two core switches were > >> two 5500s (showing my age again) with four ports in an etherchannel > >> between them. > >> > >> Sound OK so far? Well they were in portfast. As you can imagine the > >> performance was woeful. > >> > >> Mr Client, why are these in Porftfast? > >> Oh, because I wanted the ports to go faster... > >> > >> Have fun out there! :) > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Matt > >> > >> CCIE #22386 > >> CCSI #31207 > >> > >> On 5 November 2010 15:23, Abel ... <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Where I work now I have the same experience you're having now, bad > >> > document > >> > network, lack of good design and spanning-tree disable in some VLANs. > >> > After > >> > some investigation, the VLAN1 spanning-tree was disable cause previous > >> > administrator have some normal behavior of STP and blocking stuff but > he > >> > really don't know the way STP works. At the end some ports on edge L2 > >> > switchs have a local loop, he solved/patch disabling STP in VLAN1 to > >> > avoid > >> > the normal behavior. Other rare stuff, etherchannel in auto-auto > >> > fashion. If > >> > i remember something else I update the thread. > >> > Regards > >> > > >> > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 11:10 PM, marc abel <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Hello group, > >> >> > >> >> Can any of you tell me a reason you would want to disable spanning > >> >> tree? I > >> >> just started at a new company and I am uncovering a number of > >> >> frightening > >> >> design (or lack of design) issues. Someone previously disabled > spanning > >> >> tree > >> >> on a number of the main vlans for the core switch. The network isn't > >> >> well > >> >> documented so I don't know the history on why. > >> >> > >> >> Is there ever a good reason to disable spanning tree? It seems like > it > >> >> must be a band-aid for some other problem. It frightens me more > because > >> >> the > >> >> network has been bridged to basically be one huge broadcast domain. > >> >> Thanks in advance, > >> >> > >> >> Marc > >> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, > >> >> please > >> >> visit www.ipexpert.com > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, > >> > please > >> > visit www.ipexpert.com > >> > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, > please > >> visit www.ipexpert.com > > > > >
_______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com
