> > so the risk of a bridge loop is better than a recalculation of spanning >tree >> ;-> >> >sure, especially when you KNOW you're in a loop-free environment. of >course, my motto is "spanning tree bridging, don't leave home without it". > >I've seen goofy things happen without spanning tree or with partial spanning >tree running in a looped environment. (don't ask about 'partial spanning >tree' - I still can't figure out how they did that and why) And I've seen >goofy things happen with spanning tree in big redundant environments, >especially with respect to not being able to control which ports get >disabled in a loop path. The morale of the story there is the path you want >to have disabled (the redundant one between switches) will always be >enabled, and vice versa (as in the uplink to the router will be disabled).
Perhaps not a general application, but the intercarrier exchange point operators have been pleading for switches where STP is off by default. Now, understand their environment is very controlled, with point-to-point or at most point-to-two-point links among routers through a common fabric. They use VLANs as points on a virtual patch panel. They may use them to distinguish among customers (who are ISPs), and possibly between multicast and unicast services. There was a presentation at the last Washington NANOG on this, by Paul Vixie. There is even more continuing discussion in the European Exchange Point Operators mailing list under RIPE. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=23619&t=23497 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
