The biggest issue we have with MSTP is the inability to deal with unstable links. A high capacity backhaul flapping is disastrous with MSTP due to the constant bridge table flushing. G.8032 should be able to deal with this type of failure more gracefully. I think MPLS also has ways of dealing with it but I have not investigated that route as much of our existing equipment does not support MPLS. We have to deploy new equipment at the tower sites so MPLS would be an option, but so far we are thinking MEF over MPLS solutions.
Mark > On Dec 1, 2014, at 10:55 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af <[email protected]> wrote: > > This info may be a bit outdated with MSTP, I haven't looked, but it used to > be that the size of your tree should be no larger than 7 nodes. > josh reynolds :: chief information officer > spitwspots :: www.spitwspots.com <http://www.spitwspots.com/>On 12/01/2014 > 01:50 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) via Af wrote: >> Do you really need something faster than one of the spanning tree variants? >> >> The topology at Montana Internet is to have a layer 3 switch at each site >> and a big flat rapid spanning tree ring for all of the OSPF speaking layer 3 >> switches (Aka routers) to talk on. If I yank a ring cable, I lose about a >> second on two is all. >> >> -forrest >> >> On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Scott Vander Dussen via Af <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Looking to add Ethernet ring protection switching into our network. I've >> attached a PDF demonstrating the topology of the test tower set. I'm >> leaning toward a G.8032v2 implementation simply because it's ITU standards >> based and not vendor specific. Other options include Brocade MRP, Moxa >> Turbo Chain, etc. Any shared wisdom would be greatly appreciate before we >> get ourselves pot committed. >> >> Scott >> >
