On 1/18/16, Michele Bergonzoni <berg...@labs.it> wrote: >> So it seems like loop guard isn't needed if rstp is enabled. > > I have no operational experience with loop guard, but from the description > it seems to me that in order to trigger it the interface must become > unidirectional *after* link up.
Right > Thus, if your Joe Average while > troubleshooting does a shut/no shut, he actually gets the loop. I'm not sure about shut/no shut but a reboot after the link goes unidirectional -- yes, you get a loop. > So it will protect you on the other unidirectionality side, but not in all > possible sequences of events. > > If you are operating an all-cisco net you might take a look at bridge > assurance. I have no operational experience with it as well (apart from > disabling it in the nexus), but looks much more like a bidirectional > keepalive at the STP layer. It is proprietary and violates the standard as I > understand it. Sounds like loop guard except there's now edge, normal and network port types with network ports going into blocking/inconsistent state if they don't see BPDUs. Loop guard puts a port into blocking/inconsistent state if it _stops_ seeing BPDUs on a port. >> No, I don't like UDLD at all - too many bad experiences with it > > In fact after what Saku said I would consider trusting the layer 1, but I > usually work in a multivendor environment, YMMV. Right - it does sound like rstp might be good enuf. Regards, Lee _______________________________________________ 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/