On Thu, 2012-08-02 at 08:40 -0700, Pete Templin wrote: > He clearly said 'just as a backup'. You clearly said "without > driving to each site". What do you want? Get over it, there's risk > involved in what you want to do (that risk entered as soon as you > chose to remove STP, maybe as soon as you thought of it), you might > want to implement a safety net.
On Thu, 2012-08-02 at 11:24 -0500, James Urwiller wrote: > if you don't have anything good to say; then don't. Im sure the forum > doesn't need your attitude, I know I don't. Huh? You're seriously writing that? As a reply to what Pete wrote? I need Pete's attitude a hell of a lot more than I need yours. Converting between STP protocols (ieee/pvst/rapid-pvst) just can't be done without convergence time. What "service effecting" is for people might vary. I personally consider more than 50ms as service effecting. Chuck wrote solid advice, what I'd consider simple best practice. That's the way people do it. You reply: On Thu, 2012-08-02 at 10:18 -0500, James Urwiller wrote: > That kind of defeats the whole "not service effecting" issue.. thanks > anyway. Now tell me, who has an attitude problem? -- Peter _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
