I was hoping nobody would answer. ;-) Because actually I don't like my answer. It should read, "A hierarchical network design MAY already be a tree!" It wouldn't necessarily be a tree.
Priscilla At 11:31 PM 10/22/01, Jonathan Hays wrote: >Good point. > >Although I did not originate this thread, a hearty thanks to all posters!! I >learned >something here... > >Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote: > > > That makes sense. A hierarchical network design is already a tree! > > > > Thanks. > > > > Priscilla > > > > At 10:55 PM 10/19/01, Leigh Anne Chisholm wrote: > > >Actually, Cisco teaches that in certain circumstances in the Core, you >want > > >to disable Spanning Tree Protocol (STP). I don't have the courseware with > > >me at the moment, but I guess the thinking is that with Core layer >devices, > > >you don't run anything extraneous that takes away from the primary role of > > >high-speed packet switching. STP is considered extraneous when it's not > > >required. > > > > > >Instead of me posting from Cisco's course material once I'm at home, why >not > > >search Cisco for this information... if you're interested in knowing more. > > > > > > > > > -- Leigh Anne > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > > > Jonathan Hays > > > > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 2:20 PM > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: Re: Switching exam question [7:23497] > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. For the server to have a fully redundant connection it must have a > > > > second NIC to > > > > another switch and failover software in place. > > > > > > > > However, you are mistaken that anyone would normally disable STP on any > > > > trunk port, > > > > regardless of whether the switch is in the Core, Distribution, or >Access > > > > layer. > > > > > > > > Piatnitchi Cristian wrote: > > > > > > > > > Please see this link > > > > > > > > > > http://www.geocities.com/cristi_piatnitchi/ > > > > > This is picture from the Cisco site. > > > > > > > > > > Could you explain me how the redundacy is achieved for the > > > > server present > > > > on > > > > > this scheme ? > > > > > In my opinion if there is no STP in the L2 core and nor a > > > > second connection > > > > > from the server to the other switch "cb" > > > > > there is no protection against of a failure of switch "ca". So > > > > I consider > > > > is > > > > > useless to have redundancy in the access and > > > > > distribution layers. Am I wrong ? If yes why ? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance > > > > > Cristian > > ________________________ > > > > Priscilla Oppenheimer > > http://www.priscilla.com ________________________ Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=23843&t=23497 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
