Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote: > > DTP uses protocol type 2004 too, just like DISL. I guess it's just an update > to DISL for use with 802.1Q rather than ISL? > Yes. Step 1: negotiate whether to trunk. Step 2: if the result is yes, then negotiate which flavor. If both are indifferent, favor ISL.
> And, I figured out why you might want to tell DTP not to autonegotiate or be > desirable and why in that case no VTP domain name is exchanged and the VTP > domain names don't have to match. The main reason is that the other end > might not be Cisco and might not care about VTP anyway. Does that make sense? > Or the other switch is a Cisco one that doesn't speak DTP. The 2900/3500XLs and the 2950 didn't speak DTP until recently. Skipping the DTP negotiation with a device that isn't capable eliminates one source of delay before STP is handed the port. I was told by someone in Cisco that the original reason for "nonegotiate" was that the early ISL NIC drivers in servers didn't gracefully ignore the DTP multicast, but crashed the server! - Marty Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=64985&t=64892 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
