Reimer, Fred wrote: >Think of it like this. Each switch is supposed to block redundant ports >leading to the root bridge. Say Switch1 and Switch2 are interlinked, and >also have downlink connections to the root bridge, like this: > >Switch1 ------ Switch2 > | | > | | >Core1 ---------- Core2 > >Say Core1 is the root bridge. Assuming equal cost links (All Gigabit ports) >and no tweaking, what link would be blocked? It should be the inter-link >port between Switch1 and Switch2 on Switch1's side. Now, this is not >exactly how it works, but if it helps you can think of it like, since >Switch1 blocked its port going to Switch2, Switch2 can't "See" the root >bridge on that port, so it keeps it open. Like I said, that's not exactly >how it works, but if it helps you understand what port gets blocked then so >be it. I'd suggest reading the IEEE docs though. They are a little hard to >follow, because of the similar terms it uses (too many "Designated" for my >taste), but it is the definitive text on the topic. > > Another more readable doc on spanning would be Radia Perlman's Interconnections.
Dave >Fred Reimer - CCNA > > >Eclipsys Corporation, 200 Ashford Center North, Atlanta, GA 30338 >Phone: 404-847-5177 Cell: 770-490-3071 Pager: 888-260-2050 > > >NOTICE; This email contains confidential or proprietary information which >may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the named recipient(s). >If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected the email, please >notify the author by replying to this message. If you are not the named >recipient, you are not authorized to use, disclose, distribute, copy, print >or rely on this email, and should immediately delete it from your computer. > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Curious [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 12:02 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: Amazing Spanning Tree [7:74594] > >Hello friends, I want to thank every answer to this post. I knew that a port > >with spanning tree in blockin state has not any relation with being "down", >I >was surprised with some answers. What surprised me, is that one port were in >forwarding state and the port in front be in blocking state. For me, there >is >no sense in having one port in forwarding state when the port in front is in >blocking >state, why not both in blocking state?? I know that RFC's stablish the rules >but >I want to understand the sense. > >Thanks again!! >**Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: >http://shop.groupstudy.com >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html >**Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: >http://shop.groupstudy.com >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > > > -- David Madland CCIE# 2016 Sr. Network Engineer Qwest Communications 612-664-3367 "Emotion should reflect reason not guide it" Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=74679&t=74594 -------------------------------------------------- **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
