At 12:01 PM 7/9/01 -0400, you wrote:
>After testing this in the lab I can say that the book is incorrect. I tested
>with 2 5505s and 2 6509s. In both cases even with the config rev. zero on
>both switches one of the VTP server switches will overwrite the others
>database when the trunk between them is brought up. The same switch did not
>win each time so I conclude that there is no determining factor past the
>revision number. The switch that wins seems to be the one which sends out
>the VTP update first.
>
>In theory the book is correct. I have seen it written in several places
>(including CCO) that a switch will ignore a VTP advertisment with a rev.
>number which is the same, however this is not the case.
>
>Rich
>
Somehow....that doesn't surprise me at all! And it definitely wouldn't be
the first time a certification text had bad or outdated information in it.
Considering that Cisco probably has diddled with the way VTP works
several times since the book was published, that you would find those
results would probably be par for the course. But also consider that when
that particular portion of text from the book was drafted, VTP probably
worked just like the book states. But all that aside, I do sincerely
appreciate
the time and effort you put into testing out the theory, it just goes to show
that experience, up close and personal, should always be your guide, when
afforded,
whether that experience comes via work in a real live production environment,
in a controlled and preditable lab environment, or in an oft unpredictable
home lab
environment, vice what you have read, until proven that what you have read,
is infact true.
Stefan
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=11598&t=11335
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
