Spanning tree question on .1q trunks [7:65386]
Hey All, I am going through my network, which consists of a single 4006 at the core, and some 14 2950's connected via gig fibre. Picture this, I have 4 2950's on each floor (3 floors in my building, yes I know that does not equal 14 switch's) each have a gbic fibre connection to the 4006 core, whilst the other gig port go's to the next switch on that level. So switch 1 connects int gig 0/2 to switch 2 gig 0/2 My issue at the moment, is that when I have a look at the spanning tree states, I see that both gig ports are in a forwarding state. That does not sound correct to me as I expected to see one blocking (the int gig 0/2) and the link to the core in a forwarding state. Here is the output of one of my switch's lvl13-sw1#sh spanning-tree blockedports Name Blocked Interfaces List Number of blocked ports (segments) in the system : 0 --- A showing of my active spanning tree ports shows -- InterfacePort ID DesignatedPort ID Name Prio.Nbr Cost Sts Cost Bridge ID Prio.Nbr - --- - Gi0/1128.49 4 FWD 0 8192 0009.e87f.ea00 128.75 Gi0/2128.50 4 FWD 4 32769 000a.b7e3.2dc0 128.50 * I have noticed that the cost of the port is significantly higher which would indicate to me that data not go over this interface unless the interface gig 0/1 died. Am I right, or do I have an error on my network. Thanks for this guys/girls/etc/squid/ ** visit http://www.solution6.com UK Customers - http://www.solution6.co.uk ** The Solution 6 Head Office and NSW Branch has moved premises. Please make sure you have updated your records with our new details. Level 14, 383 Kent Street, Sydney NSW 2000. General Phone: 61 2 9278 0666 General Fax: 61 2 9278 0555 ** This email message (and attachments) may contain information that is confidential to Solution 6. If you are not the intended recipient you cannot use, distribute or copy the message or attachments. In such a case, please notify the sender by return email immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message and attachments that do not relate to the official business of Solution 6 are neither given nor endorsed by it. * Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=65386&t=65386 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Spanning tree question on .1q trunks [7:65386]
ur right about the frames ability to use gig0/2 only if the gig0/1 goes down, but according to the standard, the link from which bpdu's arrive with a higher cost will be put on blocking, but visibely that is not the case. some one will surelly respond to this. ""John Brandis"" a icrit dans le message de news: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Hey All, > > I am going through my network, which consists of a single 4006 at the core, > and some 14 2950's connected via gig fibre. > > Picture this, I have 4 2950's on each floor (3 floors in my building, yes I > know that does not equal 14 switch's) each have a gbic fibre connection to > the 4006 core, whilst the other gig port go's to the next switch on that > level. So switch 1 connects int gig 0/2 to switch 2 gig 0/2 > > My issue at the moment, is that when I have a look at the spanning tree > states, I see that both gig ports are in a forwarding state. That does not > sound correct to me as I expected to see one blocking (the int gig 0/2) and > the link to the core in a forwarding state. Here is the output of one of my > switch's > > lvl13-sw1#sh spanning-tree blockedports > > Name Blocked Interfaces List > > > Number of blocked ports (segments) in the system : 0 > --- > A showing of my active spanning tree ports shows > -- > > InterfacePort ID Designated Port > ID > Name Prio.Nbr Cost Sts Cost Bridge ID > Prio.Nbr > - --- - > > Gi0/1128.49 4 FWD 0 8192 0009.e87f.ea00 > 128.75 > Gi0/2128.50 4 FWD 4 32769 000a.b7e3.2dc0 > 128.50 > > * I have noticed that the cost of the port is significantly higher which > would indicate to me that data not go over this interface unless the > interface gig 0/1 died. > > Am I right, or do I have an error on my network. > > Thanks for this guys/girls/etc/squid/ > > > ** > > visit http://www.solution6.com > > UK Customers - http://www.solution6.co.uk > > ** > > The Solution 6 Head Office and NSW Branch has moved premises. > Please make sure you have updated your records with our new details. > > Level 14, 383 Kent Street, Sydney NSW 2000. > > General Phone: 61 2 9278 0666 > > General Fax: 61 2 9278 0555 > > ** > > This email message (and attachments) may contain information that is > confidential to Solution 6. If you are not the intended recipient you cannot > use, distribute or copy the message or attachments. In such a case, please > notify the sender by return email immediately and erase all copies of the > message and attachments. Opinions, conclusions and other information in > this message and attachments that do not relate to the official business of > Solution 6 are neither given nor endorsed by it. > > * Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=65418&t=65386 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Spanning tree question on .1q trunks [7:65386]
At 11:08 AM 3/14/2003 +, Amar KHELIFI wrote: >ur right about the frames ability to use gig0/2 only if the gig0/1 goes >down, but according to the standard, the link from which bpdu's arrive with >a higher cost will be put on blocking, but visibely that is not the case. >some one will surelly respond to this. Keep in mind that only one side of a point to point LAN link will ever block. One node on every LAN segment must be elected as the designated bridge port for the segment.I posted a pretty long explanation of this awhile back but can't find it in my archives :( Pete >""John Brandis"" a icrit dans le message de >news: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Hey All, > > > > I am going through my network, which consists of a single 4006 at the >core, > > and some 14 2950's connected via gig fibre. > > > > Picture this, I have 4 2950's on each floor (3 floors in my building, yes >I > > know that does not equal 14 switch's) each have a gbic fibre connection to > > the 4006 core, whilst the other gig port go's to the next switch on that > > level. So switch 1 connects int gig 0/2 to switch 2 gig 0/2 > > > > My issue at the moment, is that when I have a look at the spanning tree > > states, I see that both gig ports are in a forwarding state. That does not > > sound correct to me as I expected to see one blocking (the int gig 0/2) >and > > the link to the core in a forwarding state. Here is the output of one of >my > > switch's > > > > lvl13-sw1#sh spanning-tree blockedports > > > > Name Blocked Interfaces List > > > > > > Number of blocked ports (segments) in the system : 0 > > --- > > A showing of my active spanning tree ports shows > > -- > > > > InterfacePort ID Designated >Port > > ID > > Name Prio.Nbr Cost Sts Cost Bridge ID > > Prio.Nbr > > - --- - > > > > Gi0/1128.49 4 FWD 0 8192 0009.e87f.ea00 > > 128.75 > > Gi0/2128.50 4 FWD 4 32769 000a.b7e3.2dc0 > > 128.50 > > > > * I have noticed that the cost of the port is significantly higher which > > would indicate to me that data not go over this interface unless the > > interface gig 0/1 died. > > > > Am I right, or do I have an error on my network. > > > > Thanks for this guys/girls/etc/squid/ > > > > > > ** > > > > visit http://www.solution6.com > > > > UK Customers - http://www.solution6.co.uk > > > > ** > > > > The Solution 6 Head Office and NSW Branch has moved premises. > > Please make sure you have updated your records with our new details. > > > > Level 14, 383 Kent Street, Sydney NSW 2000. > > > > General Phone: 61 2 9278 0666 > > > > General Fax: 61 2 9278 0555 > > > > ** > > > > This email message (and attachments) may contain information that is > > confidential to Solution 6. If you are not the intended recipient you >cannot > > use, distribute or copy the message or attachments. In such a case, >please > > notify the sender by return email immediately and erase all copies of the > > message and attachments. Opinions, conclusions and other information in > > this message and attachments that do not relate to the official business >of > > Solution 6 are neither given nor endorsed by it. > > > > * Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=65431&t=65386 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Spanning tree question on .1q trunks [7:65386]
which switch in this connected set of three is the root bridge?
A root bridge will always have its ports forwarding...
do a show spantree summ and see which is the root and the sec root...
Larry Letterman
Network Engineer
Cisco Systems
- Original Message -
From: John Brandis
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 4:46 PM
Subject: Spanning tree question on .1q trunks [7:65386]
Hey All,
I am going through my network, which consists of a single 4006 at the core,
and some 14 2950's connected via gig fibre.
Picture this, I have 4 2950's on each floor (3 floors in my building, yes
I
know that does not equal 14 switch's) each have a gbic fibre connection to
the 4006 core, whilst the other gig port go's to the next switch on that
level. So switch 1 connects int gig 0/2 to switch 2 gig 0/2
My issue at the moment, is that when I have a look at the spanning tree
states, I see that both gig ports are in a forwarding state. That does not
sound correct to me as I expected to see one blocking (the int gig 0/2) and
the link to the core in a forwarding state. Here is the output of one of my
switch's
lvl13-sw1#sh spanning-tree blockedports
Name Blocked Interfaces List
Number of blocked ports (segments) in the system : 0
---
A showing of my active spanning tree ports shows
--
InterfacePort ID DesignatedPort
ID
Name Prio.Nbr Cost Sts Cost Bridge ID
Prio.Nbr
- --- -
Gi0/1128.49 4 FWD 0 8192 0009.e87f.ea00
128.75
Gi0/2128.50 4 FWD 4 32769 000a.b7e3.2dc0
128.50
* I have noticed that the cost of the port is significantly higher which
would indicate to me that data not go over this interface unless the
interface gig 0/1 died.
Am I right, or do I have an error on my network.
Thanks for this guys/girls/etc/squid/
**
visit http://www.solution6.com
UK Customers - http://www.solution6.co.uk
**
The Solution 6 Head Office and NSW Branch has moved premises.
Please make sure you have updated your records with our new details.
Level 14, 383 Kent Street, Sydney NSW 2000.
General Phone: 61 2 9278 0666
General Fax: 61 2 9278 0555
**
This email message (and attachments) may contain information that is
confidential to Solution 6. If you are not the intended recipient you
cannot
use, distribute or copy the message or attachments. In such a case, please
notify the sender by return email immediately and erase all copies of the
message and attachments. Opinions, conclusions and other information in
this message and attachments that do not relate to the official business of
Solution 6 are neither given nor endorsed by it.
*
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=65450&t=65386
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
