That's work ! I configured the trunk, On the associated Ethernet Interface. I need 802.1Q, because I want multiple services. Thanks Ruddy
-----Message d'origine----- De : cisco-nsp [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de [email protected] Envoyé : mardi 8 juillet 2014 11:14 À : [email protected] Objet : cisco-nsp Digest, Vol 140, Issue 11 Send cisco-nsp mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [email protected] You can reach the person managing the list at [email protected] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of cisco-nsp digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Divide large PVST domain? (Victor Sudakov) 2. Re: Divide large PVST domain? (Antonio Soares) 3. Re: Divide large PVST domain? (Victor Sudakov) 4. Re: Configure 802.1Q on HWIC-4SHDSL-E (Gert Doering) 5. Re: How to calculate transceiver power of SFP on 7200 series? (Rob Seastrom) 6. Re: Divide large PVST domain? (JC Cockburn) 7. Re: Divide large PVST domain? (Antonio Soares) 8. Re: Divide large PVST domain? (Victor Sudakov) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 16:09:06 +0700 From: Victor Sudakov <[email protected]> To: cisco-nsp <[email protected]> Subject: [c-nsp] Divide large PVST domain? Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Colleagues, I have a train of about 20 C3560X switches connected successively. I know such a diameter is not good for STP, however, when I place the root bridge in the middle of the train, PVST still works more or less reliably. However, if I wanted to divide this single STP domain into several smaller ones, which way is best? I can define three geographical areas between which no loop is physically possible and which cannot have any redundant links between one another. Should I just configure a bpdufilter on the border switches to separate the areas, or is there a smarter way, maybe going for MST instead of PVST? Thanks in advance for any input. -- Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN sip:[email protected] ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 10:29:52 +0100 From: "Antonio Soares" <[email protected]> To: "'Victor Sudakov'" <[email protected]>, "'cisco-nsp'" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Divide large PVST domain? Message-ID: <001401cf9a8f$2ff8f780$8feae680$@pt> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MST is the way to go. It was designed with that in mind. Check this: http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/lan-switching/spanning-tree-protoc ol/24248-147.html You just need to be careful because there are two MST flavors running on cisco switches: pre-standard and standard. Regards, Antonio Soares, CCIE #18473 (RS/SP) [email protected] http://www.ccie18473.net -----Original Message----- From: cisco-nsp [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Victor Sudakov Sent: ter?a-feira, 8 de Julho de 2014 10:09 To: cisco-nsp Subject: [c-nsp] Divide large PVST domain? Colleagues, I have a train of about 20 C3560X switches connected successively. I know such a diameter is not good for STP, however, when I place the root bridge in the middle of the train, PVST still works more or less reliably. However, if I wanted to divide this single STP domain into several smaller ones, which way is best? I can define three geographical areas between which no loop is physically possible and which cannot have any redundant links between one another. Should I just configure a bpdufilter on the border switches to separate the areas, or is there a smarter way, maybe going for MST instead of PVST? Thanks in advance for any input. -- Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN sip:[email protected] _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 17:39:52 +0700 From: Victor Sudakov <[email protected]> To: Antonio Soares <[email protected]> Cc: 'cisco-nsp' <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Divide large PVST domain? Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Antonio Soares wrote: > > > > I have a train of about 20 C3560X switches connected successively. > > I know such a diameter is not good for STP, however, when I place the root > > bridge in the middle of the train, PVST still works more or less reliably. > > > > However, if I wanted to divide this single STP domain into several smaller > > ones, which way is best? > > > > I can define three geographical areas between which no loop is physically > > possible and which cannot have any redundant links between one another. > > > > Should I just configure a bpdufilter on the border switches to separate the > > areas, or is there a smarter way, maybe going for MST instead of PVST? > MST is the way to go. It was designed with that in mind. Check this: > > http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/lan-switching/spanning-tree-protocol/24248-147.html "Cisco recommends that you place as many switches as possible into a single region; it is not advantageous to segment a network into separate regions" I wonder if MST has any limits on the network diameter. -- Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN sip:[email protected] ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 14:16:54 +0200 From: Gert Doering <[email protected]> To: Tarko Tikan <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Configure 802.1Q on HWIC-4SHDSL-E Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi, On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 12:05:22AM +0300, Tarko Tikan wrote: > >As a background: there's carriers that require you to tag the traffic > >on the carrier side. Stupid idea? dunno. Breaking all sort of CPEs? > >betcha! > > He requested config for EFM (bonding). EFM and VDSL2 both have ethernet > encapsulation and use vlan tags instead ATM PVCs. > > Stupid? Don't think so. Why require a vlan tag if there's only a single service on it? 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] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 291 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20140708/e267dada/attachment-0001.sig> ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 08:36:03 -0400 From: Rob Seastrom <[email protected]> To: "Justin M. Streiner" <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [c-nsp] How to calculate transceiver power of SFP on 7200 series? Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii "Justin M. Streiner" <[email protected]> writes: > On Tue, 8 Jul 2014, PlaWanSai RMUTT CPE IX wrote: > >> TGN#sho int g0/1 tra >> >> TX power 3888800 nW / 5 dBm (+/- 3dBm) >> >> What is power in dBm? > > Assuming nW is nanowatts (1 billionth of a watt): > 3888800 nW = .0038888 watts > > .0038888 watts = approx 5.898 dBm. > > If that "/5 dBm" means the result from above should be divided by 5, > then the actual transmit power would be a bit under +1.2 dBm. It means that 3888800 nW is approximately 5 dBm; note the tolerance immediately afterward of +/- 3 dBm. Clearly the number of significant digits one would expect from the first measurement is a bit of a fib. (Nanowatts? That's right up there with the n00bs who talk about nanofarads instead of picofarads and fractional microfarads. Just because an SI unit exists doesn't mean it's sane to express a value in terms of it when the industry standard is something markedly different. But I digress...) > Without knowing what type of transceiver you have, I don't know if > that's in the expected range. In practical terms, with just about all optics available in the normal channels of trade, +5 is "a little hot, but might work". The wisdom of giving it a shot if you don't have an attenuator handy is dependent on how hard it will be to add an attenuator in the future. Basement/office vs. datacenter vs. datacenter-on-another-continent = entirely different calculus. At gigabit (the interface at hand), ZX optics want 0 to +5, EX wants -1 to +3, everything else seems happy with an upper limit of about -3. My recollection is that 10ge is similar. Note that these are spec values; just as I've seen gigabit ethernet on copper working great at distances of over 500 feet, it's entirely possible that you can "get away with" +5. Is the interface throwing errors? Getting the speeds you expected? > Note: Google found this for me: > http://www.rapidtables.com/convert/power/Watt_to_dBm.htm dBm is decibels (log scale) referenced to 1 milliwatt. 0 dBm is 1 milliwatt. +3 dB refers to a doubling of power. Note that the fundamental unit is the "bel", not the "decibel", and one should be very careful when looking at equations to make sure what the expected input is. Yes, I have gotten wildly incorrect results from RF path loss calculations by overlooking this minor detail. :) -r ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 15:00:27 +0200 From: "JC Cockburn" <[email protected]> To: "'Victor Sudakov'" <[email protected]>, "'Antonio Soares'" <[email protected]> Cc: 'cisco-nsp' <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Divide large PVST domain? Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi All, Might be a dumb response, but what about REP? http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/switches/lan/catalyst3560/software/rele ase/15-0_2_se/configuration/guide/scg3560/swrep.html seems legit??? Ciao JC -----Original Message----- From: cisco-nsp [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Victor Sudakov Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 12:40 PM To: Antonio Soares Cc: 'cisco-nsp' Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Divide large PVST domain? Antonio Soares wrote: > > > > I have a train of about 20 C3560X switches connected successively. > > I know such a diameter is not good for STP, however, when I place > > the root bridge in the middle of the train, PVST still works more or less reliably. > > > > However, if I wanted to divide this single STP domain into several > > smaller ones, which way is best? > > > > I can define three geographical areas between which no loop is > > physically possible and which cannot have any redundant links between one another. > > > > Should I just configure a bpdufilter on the border switches to > > separate the areas, or is there a smarter way, maybe going for MST instead of PVST? > MST is the way to go. It was designed with that in mind. Check this: > > http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/lan-switching/spanning-tree- > protocol/24248-147.html "Cisco recommends that you place as many switches as possible into a single region; it is not advantageous to segment a network into separate regions" I wonder if MST has any limits on the network diameter. -- Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN sip:[email protected] _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 15:58:41 +0100 From: "Antonio Soares" <[email protected]> To: "'Victor Sudakov'" <[email protected]> Cc: 'cisco-nsp' <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Divide large PVST domain? Message-ID: <004b01cf9abd$1ba6dad0$52f49070$@pt> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Check this article: http://slaptijack.com/networking/max-spanning-tree-stp-diameter/ Regards, Antonio Soares, CCIE #18473 (RS/SP) [email protected] http://www.ccie18473.net -----Original Message----- From: cisco-nsp [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Victor Sudakov Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 12:40 PM To: Antonio Soares Cc: 'cisco-nsp' Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Divide large PVST domain? Antonio Soares wrote: > > > > I have a train of about 20 C3560X switches connected successively. > > I know such a diameter is not good for STP, however, when I place > > the root bridge in the middle of the train, PVST still works more or less reliably. > > > > However, if I wanted to divide this single STP domain into several > > smaller ones, which way is best? > > > > I can define three geographical areas between which no loop is > > physically possible and which cannot have any redundant links > > between one another. > > > > Should I just configure a bpdufilter on the border switches to > > separate the areas, or is there a smarter way, maybe going for MST instead of PVST? > MST is the way to go. It was designed with that in mind. Check this: > > http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/lan-switching/spanning-tree- > protocol/24248-147.html "Cisco recommends that you place as many switches as possible into a single region; it is not advantageous to segment a network into separate regions" I wonder if MST has any limits on the network diameter. -- Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN sip:[email protected] _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 22:13:35 +0700 From: Victor Sudakov <[email protected]> To: JC Cockburn <[email protected]> Cc: 'cisco-nsp' <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Divide large PVST domain? Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii JC Cockburn wrote: > Hi All, > Might be a dumb response, but what about REP? > > http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/switches/lan/catalyst3560/software/rele > ase/15-0_2_se/configuration/guide/scg3560/swrep.html > > seems legit??? Isn't it for ring topologies? I have a "train" topology with some redundant links between neighboring switches. I have also considered FlexLinks but came to the conclusion that STP was safer. -- Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN sip:[email protected] ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp ------------------------------ End of cisco-nsp Digest, Vol 140, Issue 11 ****************************************** _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
