On Tue, 14 Jul 2009, Gert Doering wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 09:26:13AM -0400, Jon Lewis wrote:
But isn't that the whole point of MST?
We have found MST to be mostly pointless...
"Too much hassle, too little gain"
So do you just do rapid-pvst and limit which VLANs are allowed on all
trunk ports? I know you're not a fan of VTP, and I suppose this may be
another reason. Even with the trunks limiting which VLANs get through,
VTP still creates all the vlans on all the switches, and in a PVST setup,
they run a spanning tree instance for each VLAN, even if they aren't
really participating in the VLAN.
two VLANs that share the same topology - which maps very poorly to MST
instances. At the same time, there is a fairly high dynamic in adding
and removing VLANs, which is *quite* painful with MST instance
mappings...
I've wondered about that...if we were to move to MST, we're going to have
to assign every VLAN to an MST instance, which could get messy.
Maybe it is time to just turn off VTP and manually create VLANs only where
they're needed, in which case we'll only have to worry about the number of
PVST instances on the central 6509s, as there's no way we'd run up to 128
VLANs on a 3550. We've actually never done VTP on the 6500s...only on the
3550s. I figured if VTP ever did blow up, I didn't want it blowing on the
central switches...just the edges.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Lewis | I route
Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are
Atlantic Net |
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
