Just for arguments sake I'm going to argue. (Discuss :-))
I reckon, whether it be Server or Client, if it detects a revision number
higher than itself it will update the VLAN information, but will only make
its revision number *equal* to that of the switch from which it received the
update.
Updating the VLAN info via VTP would not be classed as a manual change would
be. But even if it were, it would only increment it by one, and the very
fact that it is updating it shows that the revision must have been at least
one less than the switch from which it is learning, so now it would be
equal.
Hope that was confusing enough.
I've seen no problems with having multiple switches in Server mode.
I found in the Cisco Press BCMSN book a paragraph which states that as a
general rule there should be at least 2 switches in server mode - sorry
books at home so don't know the page number, I just found it as I powered
down my laptop last night (likely story).
I know the books can be wrong, but I totally agree in this case and can't
think of a good reason that it won't work.
Back to the floor
Gaz
""Stephen Skinner"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> chaps,
>
> what is happeneing is a loop.....
>
> when you config in a VTP rev of 0 ,the processing of this command causes a
> fresh lookup of all vlan info relevant to vlan`s in the routers memeory...
>
> ( PLEASE don`t pick to many pieces in this ...i just outlining the problem
> ,and have a VERY shakey recolection of bieng told this once.......also
it`s
> the way the cisco ios proccesess commands)
>
> seeing vlan info in the memeory/config it recognises this as a change and
> updates the VTP rev..(if in server mode)
>
> causing a change to be sent to your server switch s2 overwriting it`s
config
> ,causing a rev update ,causing an update to be sent to s1
>
> and thus casuing the great VTP "chain of life".....
>
> the first answer you recieved forkmk nigel is right "again as far as i can
> remeber"..
>
>
> HTH
>
>
> steve
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Gareth Hinton"
> >Reply-To: "Gareth Hinton"
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: Re: Cisco 5505 switch puzzle [7:11335]
> >Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 06:00:21 -0400
> >
> >Yeah, seems to fit the situation, but even if that's true, you're going
to
> >get a problem when you make the first change to either of the switches.
The
> >configuration revision will increment and the other switch will then be
> >updated with all the VLAN info from the one which has had the change
> >(losing
> >any VLANS which did not already exist on both).
> >
> >Nelluri - Did the VLAN's disappear immediately, or is it possible that a
> >change may have been made to one of the switches which incremented the
> >revision and screwed things up?
> >
> >Either way I think the only way is to configure all VLANS on the switch
> >with
> >the highest revision.
> >
> >Gaz
> >
> >
> >""Stefan Dozier"" wrote in message
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Gareth Hinton wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yeah that was sort of what I was getting at.
> > > > It would be nice if you could put the switches into a learning
> > > > mode, where
> > > > all server mode switches learn from all other server mode
> > > > switches
> > > > initially, but that's not the case, so one of them will decide
> > > > it's got the
> > > > highest VTP version and all others VLAN info will be wiped out.
> > > > I can't remember what the negotiation process consists of when
> > > > both versions
> > > > are zero, or if I ever knew. It's not an ideal way of doing it
> > > > anyway.
> > > > Probably easier to cut/paste vlan info on to one switch and
> > > > make sure it's
> > > > got the highest version.
> > > >
> > > > I've got a few sites with multiple 5500's in one VTP domain and
> > > > they're all
> > > > set to Server mode. Never caused any problems I can think of.
> > > > Off to get another book out to find out which switch wins when
> > > > both are
> > > > version zero.
> > > >
> > > > Gaz
> > >
> > > Quoting from the Cisco Press BCMSC book , chap 3 page 112....
> > >
> > > Two databases with the same configuration number will not update each
> >other,
> > > because they assume that they both have the same information.
> > >
> > > Stefan
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=11507&t=11335
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
