No worries, also you can disregard my suggestion about load balancing your "2" vlans, as I just realised after I sent it we are only talking about a single VLAN here, note to self to stop multitasking! :)
Ben On 01/02/2008, at 4:08 PM, Aaron R wrote: > Yes I probably disconnected it before this as the cpu went crazy @ > like 90%. > > > Thanks for your suggestions. > > Cheers, > > Aaron. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Steele [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 2:31 PM > To: Aaron R > Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Spanning-Tree question > > It should eventually go into a blocking state as the port still > participates in STP in portfast mode, this can take 30-50 seconds > though, not sure if you've left it that long? > > On a side note, if you have Administrative control over both devices > and they are in different VTP domains already why not run the links > between the 2 business's as Trunks with vlan filtering, that way you > can load balance the 2 vlans with priority over the trunks as well as > redundancy. > > Ben > > On 01/02/2008, at 3:51 PM, Aaron R wrote: > >> Yes some access ports were portfast! Silly me! >> >> If any of those access ports are in port fast does this mean that >> spanning >> tree will not work properly? I know portfast will put the ports into >> instant >> forwarding mode but it should still receive bpdus in order to make a >> decision on what ports are blocked / forwarding yes? Or because they >> are >> forwarding straight away it doesn't listen to these bpdus in order >> to make >> this decision. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Aaron. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ben Steele [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 2:08 PM >> To: Aaron R >> Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net >> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Spanning-Tree question >> >> Do you portfast enabled on those access ports? >> >> On 01/02/2008, at 3:31 PM, Aaron R wrote: >> >>> Hi Guys, >>> >>> >>> >>> Ive got a problem that I am hoping someone can have a look at. I >>> currently >>> have four 3750's. Two belonging to one business unit and two >>> belonging to >>> another. Each group of switches is running a separate VTP domain / >>> VLAN >>> database. >>> >>> I am running PVST however when I connect the final link between the >>> four >>> switches there is a loop and spanning tree doesn't block any of the >>> ports. >>> Would anyone have any clue as to why this would be happening? Could >>> it have >>> something to do with the link between the Business units being on >>> separate >>> VLANs? We don't want the possibility of VLAN corruption occurring >>> hence the >>> different VTP domains. Currently I am shutting down one of the >>> uplink ports >>> to Business A to remedy this problem. Please see the diagram below. >>> >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------ >>> ------------------------ >>> >>> | 3750 Switch 1 |------- Trunk ------ | 3750 Switch 2 | >>> >>> | Business A | | Business A | >>> >>> ------------------------- >>> ------------------------- >>> >>> | VL 50 | VL 50 >>> >>> >>> | | >>> >>> | VL 100 | VL 100 >>> >>> >>> ------------------------ >>> ------------------------ >>> >>> | 3750 Switch 3 |------- Trunk ------ | 3750 Switch 4 | >>> >>> | Business B | | Business B | >>> >>> ------------------------- >>> ------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Aaron. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp >>> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ >> > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/