Re: [c-nsp] stp on me3600 on efp's with locally connected older switch

Team, MST AG is in roadmap to solve this problem. Best Regards, Waris Sagheer Technical Marketing Manager Service Provider Access Group wa...@cisco.com Phone: +1 408 853 6682 Mobile: +1 408 835 1389 CCIE - 19901 Think before you print. This email may contain confident

Re: [c-nsp] stp on me3600 on efp's with locally connected older switch

> There isn't much you can do afaik: STP on ACs (CE-only, and consistent port > configurations / prone PVSTP), waiting for MST-AG or even MC LAG, keep away > from loop-capable ACs per L2 site. I'am really missing here s/w support for H-VPLS based setups. Currently I see no way other then runnin

Re: [c-nsp] stp on me3600 on efp's with locally connected older switch

On 28/01/2013 23:05, Benny Amorsen wrote: > Does that actually help? Does a 3560 merge multiple VLANs into a single > topology if they happen to use the same ports everywhere? Different varieties of spanning tree do different things: 802.1d / 802.1w RSTP: single topology for all vlans PVSTP / PV-

Re: [c-nsp] stp on me3600 on efp's with locally connected older switch

Nick Hilliard writes: > there's no 128 vlan limit - it's a spanning tree topology limit of 128 > instances for pvrst. If you need more than 128 different topologies in a > your network, your network would probably benefit from a redesign. And if > you want to use all 4094 vlans on your 3560, th

Re: [c-nsp] stp on me3600 on efp's with locally connected older switch

On 28/01/2013 08:53, Gert Doering wrote: > The pure number of VLANs is not the real deciding factor either - having > 1000 VLANs on a single port each is less burden than 100 VLANs, but all > of them on 50 trunk ports. (I could see a router vendor having a limit > there, like "your number of acti

Re: [c-nsp] stp on me3600 on efp's with locally connected older switch

Hi, On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 11:04:28PM +, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 25/01/2013 19:45, Gert Doering wrote: > > Which is not god-given but a design decision by certain BUs that *should* > > be able to get a faster CPU than a Z80 these days... > > but where do you want to stop? 128 vlans means

Re: [c-nsp] stp on me3600 on efp's with locally connected older switch

On 25/01/2013 19:45, Gert Doering wrote: > Which is not god-given but a design decision by certain BUs that *should* > be able to get a faster CPU than a Z80 these days... but where do you want to stop? 128 vlans means 128 customers with a single vlan each. What happens when you want 2000 custom

Re: [c-nsp] stp on me3600 on efp's with locally connected older switch

Hi, On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 03:57:04PM +, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 25/01/2013 15:54, Christian Meutes wrote: > > Which flexibility do you mean here? Shouldn't RSTP be a subset of MSTP? > > with rstp you can have a different topology per vlan, but you max out at > 128 vlans. Which is not g

Re: [c-nsp] stp on me3600 on efp's with locally connected older switch

: Friday, January 25, 2013 2:30 AM To: 'Aaron'; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: RE: [c-nsp] stp on me3600 on efp's with locally connected older switch Hi Aaron, Wouldn't the tunneling of STP and letting CE switches to block out the redundant paths an option? adam

Re: [c-nsp] stp on me3600 on efp's with locally connected older switch

On 25/01/2013 16:31, Christian Meutes wrote: > I believe you mean PVRST and not RSTP. yep, correct - that should have been clear from the context. I don't use vanilla rstp anywhere because single topologies just don't work with nontrivial L2 configurations. Nick

Re: [c-nsp] stp on me3600 on efp's with locally connected older switch

On Jan 25, 2013, at 4:57 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > with rstp you can have a different topology per vlan, but you max out at > 128 vlans. With MST you're stuck with 16 topologies per area, but you can > use all 4094 vlans. I believe you mean PVRST and not RSTP.

Re: [c-nsp] stp on me3600 on efp's with locally connected older switch

On 25/01/2013 15:54, Christian Meutes wrote: > Which flexibility do you mean here? Shouldn't RSTP be a subset of MSTP? with rstp you can have a different topology per vlan, but you max out at 128 vlans. With MST you're stuck with 16 topologies per area, but you can use all 4094 vlans. Nick ___

Re: [c-nsp] stp on me3600 on efp's with locally connected older switch

On 24.01.2013, at 23:44, Nick Hilliard wrote: > This isn't surprising. An me3600 can handle up to 4000 bridge domains > (http://goo.gl/0gz4n), each with their own topology, but only supports 128 > rstp instances (http://goo.gl/RLQ05). While rstp has more flexibility than > mst, it doesn't scale

Re: [c-nsp] stp on me3600 on efp's with locally connected older switch

Hi Aaron, Wouldn't the tunneling of STP and letting CE switches to block out the redundant paths an option? adam ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net

Re: [c-nsp] stp on me3600 on efp's with locally connected older switch

On 24/01/2013 21:05, Reuben Farrelly wrote: > Aside from that, the restriction about only being able to peer with MSTP > across EFP's is a pretty horrendous one, I was really surprised to find > that even Cisco's Rapid PVST isn't supported and it's not on the roadmap :-( This isn't surprising. An

Re: [c-nsp] stp on me3600 on efp's with locally connected older switch

> And if anyone has any suggestions about designing loop prevention via > me3600's when I'm connecting legacy vlans over vpls via my mpls cloud then > fire away. There isn't much you can do afaik: STP on ACs (CE-only, and consistent port configurations / prone PVSTP), waiting for MST-AG or even M

Re: [c-nsp] stp on me3600 on efp's with locally connected older switch

On 24.01.2013, at 21:40, "Aaron" wrote: > Ugh, I asked this question like a month ago! I knew it seemed familiar > :) thanks folks for putting up with me :) Hey! Did y'all know that > efp's only support MSTP !! lol Which translates at least to 802.1d, 802.1w and 802.1s, not *that* ba

Re: [c-nsp] stp on me3600 on efp's with locally connected older switch

On 25/01/2013 7:25 AM, Aaron wrote: Why does " l2protocol peer stp" show up as an option if it's not supported? Is that one of those things with ios that commands are there but don't work type of thing? ...anyway, is MST (802.1s) supported on efp's? Aaron sv-b-ME3600-test# sv-b-ME3600-test

Re: [c-nsp] stp on me3600 on efp's with locally connected older switch

rsday, January 24, 2013 2:26 PM To: 'Pshem Kowalczyk' Cc: 'cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net' Subject: RE: [c-nsp] stp on me3600 on efp's with locally connected older switch Why does " l2protocol peer stp" show up as an option if it's not supported? Is that one of

Re: [c-nsp] stp on me3600 on efp's with locally connected older switch

Ugh, I asked this question like a month ago! I knew it seemed familiar :) thanks folks for putting up with me :) Hey! Did y'all know that efp's only support MSTP !! lol http://www.mail-archive.com/cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net/msg48863.html Aaron

Re: [c-nsp] stp on me3600 on efp's with locally connected older switch

ether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] stp on me3600 on efp's with locally connected older switch Hi, On 25 January 2013 06:17, Aaron wrote: > > Need to run stp on me3600 on efp and peer out that interface with > older cisco 4500. Here's what I did.. {cut} > > And if anyone h

Re: [c-nsp] stp on me3600 on efp's with locally connected older switch

Hi, On 25 January 2013 06:17, Aaron wrote: > > Need to run stp on me3600 on efp and peer out that interface with older > cisco 4500. Here's what I did.. {cut} > > And if anyone has any suggestions about designing loop prevention via > me3600's when I'm connecting legacy vlans over vpls via my

[c-nsp] stp on me3600 on efp's with locally connected older switch

Need to run stp on me3600 on efp and peer out that interface with older cisco 4500. Here's what I did.. ME3600 #sh run in g0/22 interface GigabitEthernet0/22 switchport trunk allowed vlan none switchport mode trunk service instance 675 ethernet encapsulation dot1q 675 rewrite ingr