I think EAPS is proprietary to Extreme Networks (but I could be wrong).
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Moloy Kumar Kar <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Experts, > > Is there any possibility of using EAPS, provided your equipments support !!! > I have experienced less than 50 ms convergence time with EAPS on > optical/electrical rings. > > Regards, > Moloy Kumar Kar > > > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 7:40 PM, marc abel <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Just to add a little more to this, even after tuning all the rstp >> timers down to their minimum I don't see any noticeable change. I >> still drop 1 packet between convergence. So I guess it's better to >> keep the default timers to keep cpu usage down if it doesn't really >> gain me anything to go lower. Anyone have an opinion on this? >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 8:53 PM, marc abel <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I'm steadily improving the network from little/no redundancy to >> > complete redundancy. I have to pick my budget battles right now and >> > frankly there are a few other places I'd rather improve first. >> > Fortunately all my server switches are linked via ether-channel. >> > Although no matter how many links in your bundle, if you lose your STP >> > root, then you are going to have a re-convergence. I had a core switch >> > roll over on me due to a "parity error" (according to TAC) a few >> > months ago. Things recovered really well, but I haven't implemented >> > the voice yet so I didn't have anything quite that latency dependent >> > at the time. >> > >> > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Jay Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Any chance of just doubling your links for each path? That would only >> >> require 2 extra pairs of fiber to each IDF rather than uplinking each >> >> switch. But then again, that 1 ping missed with RSTP was with default >> >> timers >> >> and I'm sure you could trim that down. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Michael Smith <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Well you guys are right. I've always dealt with switches that have >> >>> been >> >>> etherchannelled to another switch so I never really dealt with >> >>> switches that >> >>> are single linked like that. I just don't know the reason why anybody >> >>> wouldn't etherchannel their switches together. Hey I guess you live >> >>> and you >> >>> learn! >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 20:28:21 -0600 >> >>> > Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Rapid Spanning Tree convergence times >> >>> > From: [email protected] >> >>> > To: [email protected] >> >>> > CC: [email protected]; [email protected] >> >>> > >> >>> > Right because in my situation one of the links to the cores is going >> >>> > to be in blocking state. I don't see any way around that. >> >>> > >> >>> > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Jay Taylor <[email protected]> >> >>> > wrote: >> >>> > > Even with HSRP and sub-second hellos you could lose pings >> >>> > > depending on >> >>> > > how >> >>> > > STP needed to converge. >> >>> > > >> >>> > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Michael Smith >> >>> > > <[email protected]> >> >>> > > wrote: >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> Well I'm talking as far as the VOIP phones go. They obviously >> >>> > >> need a >> >>> > >> gateway and to not miss any pings you can always turn on HSRP. >> >>> > >> I'm not saying HSRP has anything to do with spanning tree. Just >> >>> > >> thinking >> >>> > >> about the fact of not losing any pings. >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> ________________________________ >> >>> > >> Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 21:05:04 -0500 >> >>> > >> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Rapid Spanning Tree convergence >> >>> > >> times >> >>> > >> From: [email protected] >> >>> > >> To: [email protected] >> >>> > >> CC: [email protected]; [email protected] >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> Maybe I'm missing something but how can HSRP (or first hop >> >>> > >> redundancy >> >>> > >> protocol) replace STP/Etherchannel? Even if 2 of the Catalyst >> >>> > >> switches in >> >>> > >> that topology were L3 gateways and ran HSRP you still need to >> >>> > >> deal >> >>> > >> with the >> >>> > >> L2 loop that exists. >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 8:50 PM, [email protected] >> >>> > >> <[email protected]> >> >>> > >> wrote: >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> Well if yor timers are that bad for VOIP you can always use hsrp >> >>> > >> if >> >>> > >> you >> >>> > >> don't want to use the etherchannel option. You can tune hsrp down >> >>> > >> to >> >>> > >> milliseconds if you wanted to. Of course your distribution >> >>> > >> switches >> >>> > >> need to >> >>> > >> support an enhanced IOS image >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> ----- Reply message ----- >> >>> > >> From: "Jay Taylor" <[email protected]> >> >>> > >> Date: Wed, Mar 9, 2011 7:57 pm >> >>> > >> Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Rapid Spanning Tree convergence times >> >>> > >> To: "marc abel" <[email protected]> >> >>> > >> Cc: <[email protected]> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> Enable portfast on the host ports and you'll see a much quicker >> >>> > >> transition. >> >>> > >> Just labbed this up and with portfast enabled I lost a single >> >>> > >> ping >> >>> > >> during >> >>> > >> the failover. Without it enabled I lost 12. >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> For the VoIP question - in production I'd recommend building with >> >>> > >> Etherchannels just so STP never needs to converge. >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 5:41 PM, marc abel <[email protected]> >> >>> > >> wrote: >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> > I have 4 switches connected in a loop. >> >>> > >> > >> >>> > >> > Cat1-------------Cat2 >> >>> > >> > | | >> >>> > >> > | | >> >>> > >> > Cat3----------Cat4 >> >>> > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> > >> > Cat 1 is the root, Cat 2 is the secondary root. All the >> >>> > >> > switches >> >>> > >> > are >> >>> > >> > set to RPVSTP and I have confirmed that show spanning-tree >> >>> > >> > shows >> >>> > >> > RSTP >> >>> > >> > as the protocol. Cat 4 shows it's interface to cat3 as it's >> >>> > >> > root >> >>> > >> > port >> >>> > >> > and the interface to Cat3 as the Alternate. I have not tuned >> >>> > >> > any >> >>> > >> > timers. >> >>> > >> > >> >>> > >> > What should be the convergence time in this situation? >> >>> > >> > >> >>> > >> > If I run a ping from a host attached to Cat4 to a host attached >> >>> > >> > to >> >>> > >> > Cat1 and then I shut the Cat1-Cat3 interface (on the Cat1 side) >> >>> > >> > it >> >>> > >> > takes about 32 seconds before pings pick back up. I thought >> >>> > >> > RSTP >> >>> > >> > was >> >>> > >> > supposed to converge in about 6 seconds? >> >>> > >> > >> >>> > >> > Another question, what is the fastest recovery time we can tune >> >>> > >> > down >> >>> > >> > to from RSTP? How do others tune this for VOIP? I know that I >> >>> > >> > can >> >>> > >> > get >> >>> > >> > sub second convergence from OSPF but not all my switches have >> >>> > >> > an >> >>> > >> > appropriate image to run ospf. >> >>> > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> > >> > 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 > > > > -- > Moloy Kumar Kar > _______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com
