One thing I never really thought about until I read something the other day:
If a switch was set to server mode I would have been wary of the
configuration revision before connecting it to an existing network.
If it was set to client mode I don't think I would have been quite as
cautious.
No matter whether the switch is client or server, the switch with the
highest revision will override the others. You can't change the VLAN
configuration, but if the revision is already higher it will override any
other switches VLAN config.
Another thing which seems a little strange - The CP BCMSN book suggests the
following steps before inserting a new switch into an existing domain(cut
down a little):
1. Issue a Clear Config All
2. Power Cycle the switch to clear the VTP NVRAM
3. Determine the mode of operation and if Server mode is to be used, verify
that the revision is set to zero.
Step one and two seem to be a bit of overkill.
>From memory, the revision was set to zero after each change of VTP mode, VTP
domain, and a few other things. After reading how non-volatile it was, I was
quite surprised how easy it was to reset it, although this could be an image
related thing. Anybody any other experiences? Rich?
Step 3 seems to go against my previous comment that it doesn't matter what
mode the switch is in. Why take more care for Server Mode if Client will
have the same disastrous effect?
Anybody any thoughts?
If we carry on like this we may actually get a topical thread to the same
length as a troll thread or a thread discussing whether piracy is a good or
bad thing. :-]
I'm only joking, but please send all flames during the evening when I am a
sad bored insomniac. During the day I haven't got time to fart.
Gaz
""Stefan Dozier"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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=11605&t=11335
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
