Saku Ytti wrote:
On (2009-07-17 09:09 -0500), Geoffrey Pendery wrote:
I'm not trying to say "MST is never useful and always terrible", but rather:
"MST doesn't fit all scenarios. For many scenarios, RPVST is much
better, and it's a shame that we've only got an open standard MST,
rather than two open standards to cover both scenarios."
Not arguing against, but would you happen to have example where
MST does not fit? All my respect to the person who decidedly
engineers L2 network with more then 65 planned and documented
topologies[0], and succeeds to deliver higher SLA than what is possible
with fewer.
"Does not fit" need not be limited solely to the number of available
topologies.
Personally I find the (lack of) graceful change control the big killer.
Our network is simply *NOT* capable of "defining the mappings ahead of
time and never changing them" because of inherited legacy. I cannot
tolerate the outages we'd need to incur every time a VLAN was added or
removed, and I'm certainly not prepared to spend the many man-months
re-numbering every vlan tag on campus into some arbitrary grouping just
so I can run MST, when PVST works *now*.
I probably *could* run MST, after a lot of work, but why would I want to?
In addition, I have serious concerns about the scope of instance 0,
particularly in the topology we run (a collapsed core/distribution
triangle).
When I tried it on the bench, I could not come up with an MST setup that
worked.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
