On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 03:22:27PM -0500, Chuck Church wrote:
> Just curious, is the VLAN mapping to instances the big issue you guys have
> with MST? In our deployments we used pretty large ranges to cover growth,
> and mapped purposes such as L2-only VLANs (no SVI), servers, users, VoIP,
> etc i
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 03:22:27PM -0500, Chuck Church wrote:
> Just curious, is the VLAN mapping to instances the big issue you guys have
> with MST? In our deployments we used pretty large ranges to cover growth,
> and mapped purposes such as L2-only VLANs (no SVI), servers, users, VoIP,
>
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Dell switches (specifically PowerConnect 7048P) and
Ciscos
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:30:00AM +, Phil Mayers wrote:
> Normally I'm not a big fan of "proprietary" protocols, but MST is so
> awesomely sucky for Campus environments ("map all your VL
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:30:00AM +, Phil Mayers wrote:
> Normally I'm not a big fan of "proprietary" protocols, but MST is so
> awesomely sucky for Campus environments ("map all your VLANs to
> instances before you start, and never change it" - yeah, right!) that we
> mandate Cisco co
On 11/27/2012 03:40 AM, Kell, Jeff wrote:
We're doing an eval on some PowerConnect 7048P switches, and have run
into spanning tree issues. They don't like PVST, but will spit out
STP that "in theory" will revert a Cisco to STP (is this process
contagious? or limited to the upstream?).
The STP
We're doing an eval on some PowerConnect 7048P switches, and have run into
spanning tree issues. They don't like PVST, but will spit out STP that "in
theory" will revert a Cisco to STP (is this process contagious? or limited to
the upstream?).
That unfortunately requires an untagged vlan 1 on
