On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Jon Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009, Geoffrey Pendery wrote: > > "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." >> >> That's exactly why I was warning about the 16/64 instance limit. This >> was my mindset when moving from PVST to MST, and I suspect there are >> many others out there thinking this way. But if you have more than 64 >> VLANs, you can't do that. You'll have to look at their topology and >> > > That's not what I meant. I just meant we'd have to decide which instance > (of likely just a few of them) to assign every VLAN to...as every VLAN has > to be assigned to some instance. I should setup a lab of switches again and > play around with MST. IIRC, the docs I've read about MST on > cisco.comgenerally split up the VLANs between MST instances 2 and 3. > > We left everything in MST0, and pull a few VLANs into MST2 for load-balancing reasons. Core-1 is root for MST0, Core-2 is root for MST2. Works for a simple topology, where every switch has redundant links back to a couple of core switches. Not sure it would be so great for the kind of topologies being discussed here. However, as soon as I want to add another VLAN to MST2, I have touch *every* switch in the MST region. And during the process MST is inconsistent - either I adjust the two core switches first, and every edge switch flips over to MST0, or I do every edge switch first, core last. Either way it's a lot of STP fun. I'm going to guess the standards body that came up with MST doesn't do too much network configuration work... Tim:> _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
