Hi, On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 11:16:57AM -0400, Jon Lewis wrote: > 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?
Yes.
Most of our VLANs are actually quite "short reach", that is, they
are distributed like this
ISP Router A (6500) == ISP Switch A (6500) -- CustomerX Switch A -- Hosts
|| || |
ISP Router B (6500) == ISP Switch B (3550) -- CustomerX Switch B -- Hosts
(leave off row "B" for non-VRRP customers. Double lines are trunks,
single lines are single-VLAN access ports)
There's an insane amount of switches and trunks, but most VLANs really
span only 3 (standard case) or 6 (HSRP/VRRP) devices.
The trunks between "ISP Router" and "ISP Switch" are pre-configured,
the links between "ISP Switch" and "customer switch" get configured
on-demand (from the VLAN range designated to "ISP Switch A")
> 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.
Yes, this would kill us immediately. "ISP Switch A" could, theoretically,
have about 350 active VLANs (one VLAN per port, 7 blades x 48 ports),
while "ISP Switch B" would choke on more than 64...
"ISP Router A" is linked to 4 different 6500 distribution switches, and
could end up with more than 1000 active VLANs (in reality it doesn't,
due to physical space constraints in this building :) ).
> >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.
Yep, this is what we do. VLANs are really only created where they are
needed (some ranges are pre-created, others on-demand).
"switchport trunk allowed vlan *ADD* 1234"
is one of our favourites, tho... :-)
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany [email protected]
fax: +49-89-35655025 [email protected]
pgpO50riXrQBw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
