Not in my experience...
You need to manually tune the bridge ID priority to elect the root bridge
where you want it. It also pays to think about a secondary root should the
the primary should fail.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sam sneed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 2:17 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: spanning tree,priority, and elections [7:17449]
>
>
> According to cisco doc's, the spanning tree tree algortihm specifies a
> priority field which defaults to 32,768. When switches power
> up they assume
> they are the bridge root and advertise this value in BPDU's across the
> network to elect a root "bridge". Since they all have same priority by
> default, the election is then decided by lowest MAC address
> of the tied
> switches. As a matter of fact, cisco uses the lowest MAC
> address tie-breaker
> in other algorithms as well. This seems simple enough to
> understand. I'd
> like to know is when they manufatcure switches do they burn
> in a lower MAC
> addresses in their core and distribution switched than in
> their access layer
> switches. Otherwise, access layer switches might be elected
> as root bridges
> during the election which would not be optimal.
>
> Can anyone give some insight on this?
>
> p.s. Excuse me for any grammar or punctuation errors, as I am
> a product of
> N.J. Public Schools.....
>
>
> Sam Sneed
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=17456&t=17449
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
