Hi Marc, I also agree with you, I did not find other vendors supporting EAPS/EAPSv2 except Extreme Networks; though Cisco has similar features with APS.
However, recently Juniper EX3200 Series Ethernet Swicth documents do mention support of RFC3619. Regards, Moloy Kumar Kar On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 9:50 PM, marc abel <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > -- Moloy Kumar Kar _______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com
