Can we conclude that whenever each UTP resilient link is in forwarding
state,
only 1 link is in blocking and the rest in forwarding state as shown in the
diagram early? If this is normal, I shall leave it as it is. :)
Regards,
Ryan
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael L. Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 10:56 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Spanning tree cost for redundant connection. [7:11623]
That would make alot of sense =)
What was I thinking....... ..... I guess that would be stupid to block ALL
ports everytime something new was connected...... geez.....
Mike W.
"John Neiberger" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> This would mean that every time you connected a new device to a switch
> that all the other ports would shut down for 30 seconds or so, which
> would wreak havoc on the network. It's only necessary to block the
> newly connected port. If a switch has been connected to the port, STP
> may change its mind about which ports to block but this won't happen to
> all ports, just the ones specifically affected by topology changes.
>
> At least that's how I think it works. ;-)
>
> John
>
> >>> "Michael L. Williams" 7/10/01 4:18:22 PM >>>
> STP (by default) should take up to 50 secs, but I thought *all* ports
> should
> go into blocking mode first thing before the STP recalc starts....
> otherwise
> you could have a switching loop (broadcast storm) for up to 50 secs....
> not
> good....
>
> Mike W.
>
> "Peter Slow" wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > nope. not if hes connecting to his root bridge. all of the interfaces
> on
> the
> > root bridge will be in forwarding state, so he should see the
> blocked
> > interface on the 3548 switch.
> >
> > something is wrong.
> >
> > just remember that you dont plug things in and ~*BLIP*~ things start
> > blocking.
> > convergence takes like 50 seconds on a network set up with defaults.
> >
> > wait a few minutes bofore looking and see what you come up with.
> > \
> > -Peter Slow
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gareth Hinton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 9:34 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Spanning tree cost for redundant connection. [7:11623]
> >
> >
> > Only one end of the link will show as blocking, the other will stay
> as
> > forwarding even though no traffic can pass over the link.
> > Check the other end to see if that is blocking.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Gaz
> >
> > ""Ryan Ngai Hon Kong"" wrote in message
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I have about 18 C3548 switches with UTP cross-over as a redundant
> link
> to
> > > the core C6009 switches (1 unit) and the production link of LX &
> SX
> GBIC.
> > > When the production link is in operation, all the GBIC ports is in
> > > forwarding
> > > state. However when I attach the redundant UTP cable at 1 C3548 to
> the
> > > another
> > > C3548 (cascade), I wonder why they are still in forwarding state.
> Here's
> a
> > > basic
> > > layout.
> > >
> > > C3548 \ / C3548
> > > (utp) | \ / | (utp)
> > > C3548 ---- C6009 ----- C3548
> > > (utp) | / \ | (utp)
> > > C3548 / \ C3548
> > >
> > > How do I set the cascading port (as a redundant link) into
> blocking
> state?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Ryan
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=11905&t=11623
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
