I would agree about setting the root priority.
The last place I worked had a prescribed order for turning the switches on,
so that they STP would suposedly converge faster.
""Bob Johnson"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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=20934&t=17449
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
