It appears that way to me. I think it takes Max Age + 2x forwarding delay.

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 3:14 PM, O'Brien, Neil <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Guys, sorry for jumping into the middle of this one but I'm curious about 
> this.
>
> So if there's an indirect link failure, do all non-portfast links have to go 
> through LIS and LRN again?
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Neil
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of marc abel
> Sent: 10 March 2011 02:15
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Rapid Spanning Tree convergence times
>
> Jay thank you for that, it cleared a misconception I had. I thought portfast 
> only affected the port in question when it came online, as when you plugged 
> it in. I didn't realize that it would impact an indirect re-convergence. I 
> tested it and it worked just like you said, I drop one packet.
>
> I am doing both ether-channel and HSRP on the uplinks. I'm thinking more 
> about what happens if I lose one of my redundant core switches.
> Also my IDF's are setup as a ring or stacked topology because I don't have 
> enough fiber to uplink each switch. So in a situation where I lose the middle 
> switch in a stack I would be relying on spanning-tree re-converging.
>
> One other thing I am still unclear about is that the max-age still shows 20 
> seconds, in the output. Isn't it supposed to be 3 x hello?
> Bah, I probably just need to re-watch the STP videos.
>
> Cat1#show span
>
> VLAN0001
>  Spanning tree enabled protocol rstp
>  Root ID    Priority    24577
>             Address     5475.d029.7080
>             This bridge is the root
>             Hello Time   2 sec  Max Age 20 sec  Forward Delay 15 sec
>
>  Bridge ID  Priority    24577  (priority 24576 sys-id-ext 1)
>             Address     5475.d029.7080
>             Hello Time   2 sec  Max Age 20 sec  Forward Delay 15 sec
>             Aging Time 300
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:50 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
>
_______________________________________________
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Reply via email to