On 12/10/2016 00:12, Tom Hill wrote:
The "new" root bridge mac is device which has always been the root for
this VLAN, not of the other devices between these and the root logged a
I'm assuming you know what that device is that's claiming the root
bridge? That's probably a good clue.
"Both sent and received BPDUs are examined by the detection mechanism.
An EtherChannel is considered inconsistent if the channel detects
greater than 75 BPDUs from different MAC addresses in more than 30
seconds. However, if 5 BPDUs are seen consecutively from the same MAC
address, the detection counters are reset. These timers/counters can
change in future software releases."
Assuming PVST BPDUs are leaking across the VPLS instance, perhaps this
is (as Dragan alludes to) triggering the EtherChannel/STP
There's a good description here:
This might be it, It will be seeing BPDUs from different MAC addresses
as there are multiple STP speaking switches connected the VPLS instances.
Without PVST running I end up with looping traffic, The traffic leaves
the VPLS on ASR 1, goes to the 4948 devices, then comes back into the
VPLS on ASR 2, which then gets forwarded back to ASR 1 and out to 4948.
Running PVST over the VPLS allowed the 4948 to put one of port-channels
up to the an ASR into blocking and stopping the loop.
With the split horizon forwarding inherent to VPLS, do you need PVST (or
STP in general) to run across these links?
Take the following as an example, customer has a layer 2 service between
sites. Should one of the ASRs or one links to the ASR fails traffic
should flow via one of the other links.
The customer's VLAN from the 4948 goes in to a VPLS on the ASRs.
4948 1 ---- 4948 2
ASR 1 ------ ASR 2
4948 3 ---- 4948 4
If the BPDUs are not sent over the VPLS instance then it loops.
Should split horizon stop the loops when connecting downstream switches
in a resilient configuration?
cisco-nsp mailing list email@example.com
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/