-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of EA Louie Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 12:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Switching exam question [7:23497]
> so the risk of a bridge loop is better than a recalculation of spanning tree > ;-> > sure, especially when you KNOW you're in a loop-free environment. CL: never underestimate the probability that what you KNOW will not remain true for long :-> of course, my motto is "spanning tree bridging, don't leave home without it". I've seen goofy things happen without spanning tree or with partial spanning tree running in a looped environment. (don't ask about 'partial spanning tree' - I still can't figure out how they did that and why) And I've seen goofy things happen with spanning tree in big redundant environments, especially with respect to not being able to control which ports get disabled in a loop path. The morale of the story there is the path you want to have disabled (the redundant one between switches) will always be enabled, and vice versa (as in the uplink to the router will be disabled). CL: this probably explains why The Powers That Be spend so much time trying to teach us how spanning tree works, and provide the ability to change bridge priorities. CCIE types are SUPPOSED to draw out their diagrams, and calculate the paths, and set the priorities so that the things you describe don't happen. The truth is, most of us, CCIE or otherwise, just muddle through. :-> _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=23618&t=23497 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
