I would think this reference would apply to a trunk going from an L2 device to an L3 device. It would make sense to shut off STP since it's not needed in this situation and the L3 device may not recognize STP and report those frames as invalid causing error stats to increment.
-Julian ""Leigh Anne Chisholm"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... : Actually, Cisco teaches that in certain circumstances in the Core, you want : to disable Spanning Tree Protocol (STP). I don't have the courseware with : me at the moment, but I guess the thinking is that with Core layer devices, : you don't run anything extraneous that takes away from the primary role of : high-speed packet switching. STP is considered extraneous when it's not : required. : : Instead of me posting from Cisco's course material once I'm at home, why not : search Cisco for this information... if you're interested in knowing more. : : : -- Leigh Anne : : > -----Original Message----- : > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of : > Jonathan Hays : > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 2:20 PM : > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] : > Subject: Re: Switching exam question [7:23497] : > : > : > Yes. For the server to have a fully redundant connection it must have a : > second NIC to : > another switch and failover software in place. : > : > However, you are mistaken that anyone would normally disable STP on any : > trunk port, : > regardless of whether the switch is in the Core, Distribution, or Access : > layer. : > : > Piatnitchi Cristian wrote: : > : > > Please see this link : > > : > > http://www.geocities.com/cristi_piatnitchi/ : > > This is picture from the Cisco site. : > > : > > Could you explain me how the redundacy is achieved for the : > server present : > on : > > this scheme ? : > > In my opinion if there is no STP in the L2 core and nor a : > second connection : > > from the server to the other switch "cb" : > > there is no protection against of a failure of switch "ca". So : > I consider : > is : > > useless to have redundancy in the access and : > > distribution layers. Am I wrong ? If yes why ? : > > : > > Thanks in advance : > > Cristian : : : : [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=24002&t=23497 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
