goof.
the problem i am trying to indicate (badly) is this .when the cisco switch
process`s the command "vtp rev 0" (yeah,i know that no the command.but
hey)...the logical order of proccessing in the IOS(not your config) is to
check the config/memory for any vlan info ....if the switch comes across
this info it makes a change to what it calls the "active vlan`s" and updates
it`s rev number ....
"as of catos 4.5.1"
the only way to have a rev number of 0 stay 0 is to not have any vlan info
on it or not activate vtp ...as is told on the BSCN course ....
if you don`t want to have your new/additional switch add/overrite your
vlan`s ,clear the vlan info and set it to transparent....
i don`t have a 55/65 handy but if anyone does please try it ....(unless
ofcourse they have changed the ios again)
this was all passed onto my by a TAC SE in cisco ....before he was saked
Hmmmmm.......i may well be wrong then
steve...politely discussing.....and NOT arguing
>From: "Gareth Hinton"
>Reply-To: "Gareth Hinton"
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Cisco 5505 switch puzzle [7:11335]
>Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 13:19:02 -0400
>
>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.
_________________________________________________________________________
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=11607&t=11335
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
