Hello list,

after having installed a new setup in a network, I noticed a more or less big issue for which I wasn't able to spot the cause yet. This is the setup:

+------------+       +------------+
| Juniper MX |-------| Juniper MX |
+------------+       +------------+
      |                    |
      |                    |
      |                    |
+------------+       +------------+
| Brocade SX |-------| Brocade SX |
+------------+       +------------+
  | | . . . |
  T T . . . T
  o o . . . o
  R R . . . R ...


The Juniper MX routers are acting as Layer3 switches with RSTP enabled, one being the root bridge, the other one being the backup root. The SX devices are both SX400 with RSTP enabled as well and a priority of 16k. The ToR switches are connected to the SX devices, usually with stp root-protect configured on each downlink interface. What happens is, that when a new port is connected or relocated between the two SX switches, I see some major packet-loss for a few seconds on all the ports behind the SX in question.

I am not sure what causes this. One assumption was a topology change resulting in a flush of the mac table but since I can't seem to be able to find out if or if not a TC occured (what is the command on the SX if available??), I am not 100% sure that this is related to the TC. Another colleque's opinion is that the rstp implementation on brocade devices is very poor and recommends to migrato to mstp which works much better. Although I am willing to test the mstp proposal, I'd really like to here some other ideas or maybe definitive answers to that behaviour and ideas how to solve this.

Disabling STP on the downlinks is not an option. Would declaring the downlink-ports to admin-edge-ports help in this situation? Since some ToR switches have (R)STP enabled theirselves, wouldn't the arrival of an BPDU package disable that configuration anyway?

Just to have it mentioned, this is the relevant configuration snippet on the SX devices:

spanning-tree single 802-1w
spanning-tree single 802-1w priority 16384

So I am actually using the correct RSTP protocol (which is not the case with spanning-tree rstp).


Thanks for any hints!


Best regards,
Nico


_______________________________________________
foundry-nsp mailing list
[email protected]
http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp

Reply via email to