Ok. makes more sense. --
RFC 1149 Compliant. ""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > No. A port that is blocked does not send BPDUs. It does receive them. I > just checked IEEE 802.1D. > > In order to participate it has to be able to receive BPDUs and it has to be > able to transition out of the Blocking state. Once in Listening, then it > can send and receive BPDUs. > > Priscilla > > At 05:34 PM 2/27/02, Steven A. Ridder wrote: > >yes it has to in order to participate. > > > >-- > > > >RFC 1149 Compliant. > > > > > >""Pierre-Alex Guanel"" wrote in message > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > So a blocked port can receive AND send BPDUs .... Correct? > > > > > > Pierre-Alex > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > > Daniel Cotts > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 2:54 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: RE: Spanning tree Protocol Questions [7:36559] > > > > > > > > > When you have an opportunity to read Clark and Hamilton the explanation > >will > > > fit. A blocked port is not physically cut. Data traffic is blocked while > > > BPDUs are allowed. Else, how would it know that a change in topology has > > > taken place? > > > Step 2. Yes, all along bridge 4 has been receiving CBPDUs on both ports. > > > Since e1 had the lower root path cost, it became the root port. There is > >no > > > need to forward the CBPDUs it receives on e0 out e1 because it has > already > > > determined that a lower cost path exists out e1. Once the e1 link fails > > > bridge 4 already knows that it has another path to the root bridge via > > > bridge 3. > > > Step 5. Logically follows. It takes the CBPDUs that it has always been > > > recieving on e0 and now forwards it out e1. It has no clue why it no > >longer > > > receives CBPDUs on e1. > > > Now think about what happens when bridge 5 e1 becomes functional again. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Pierre-Alex Guanel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 1:46 PM > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: Re: Spanning tree Protocol Questions [7:36559] > > > > > > > > > > > > Priscilla, > > > > > > > > In the attachment (Cisco CCNA Exam Guide #640-507 > > > > Certification Guide: ISBN > > > > 0-7357-0971-8), page 167 - 168, the authors seem to indicate > > > > that CBPDUs are > > > > sent from blocked ports! The ability for CBPDUs to be sent > > > > out of blocked > > > > port seems to a determinant factor for the Spanning Tree to > > > > be recomputed > > > > after a topology change .... > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a word by word copy of the passage. The part I have > > > > problem about is > > > > the one with (!!!!!!) > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > Pierre-Alex > > > > > > > > --(e0)Bridge-1 (e1)-- (e0)Bridge 5(e1)---(e1) Bridge 4 > > > > (e0)---(e1)Bridge 3 > > > > (e0)---(e1)Bridge 2 (e0)---> (To bridge 1 e0) > > > > > > > > Cost advertised by B2 is 100 > > > > Cost advertised by B3 is 200 > > > > Cost advertised by B5 is 10 > > > > Blocked port: Bridge 3, port e1 > > > > > > > > Bridge 5's E1 port fails...Only Bridge 4's MaxAge expires. > > > > The other bridges > > > > are still receiving CBPDUs on their root ports. After MaxAge > > > > expires, Bridge > > > > 4 will decide the following: > > > > > > > > Step 1 My E1 port is no longer my root port > > > > Step 2 The same root bridge is being advertised in a CBPDU on > > > > my E0 port > > > > (!!!!!) > > > > Step 3 No other CBPDUs are being received > > > > Step 4 My best path (and the only path, in this case) to the > > > > root is out of > > > > my E0 port; therefore, my root port is now E0.) > > > > Step 5 Because no other CBPDUs are entering my E1 port, I must be the > > > > designated bridge on that segment. So, I will start sending > > > > CBPDUs on E1, > > > > addming my E0 port cost (10) to the cost of the CBPDU > > > > received in the CBPDU > > > > entering E0 (200) for a total of 210 (!!!!!!) > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > > > Pierre-Alex > ________________________ > > Priscilla Oppenheimer > http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=36758&t=36559 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
