Yep - You'll only see one end of the link blocking.
To be honest I can't remember which end of the link will block and which
will stay forwarding, but I'll get back to you.
I'd guess at the fact that we would have to know where the root bridge is to
determine which end would block. I think if the 3548 turned out to be the
root the result could be different.
I think it would be advisable to check where your root bridge is if you
haven't done it already. Without configuring root priority you can end up
with a pokey little switch at the edge of the network being the root bridge
and sub optimal paths being selected.
Anybody any comments on this.
Feel free to put me right on anything. I'm constantly learning - that's wot
the group's for.
Gaz
""Ryan Ngai Hon Kong"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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=12004&t=11623
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
