The original STP was developed when a four port bridge was a big deal and networks were smaller. 802.1w, portfast, etc. are all fixes to the long timers and limitations of the protocol.
While I admire the efforts of the .1w committee and realize that STP is sometimes needed, I've been quite successful in using L3 for networks and removing reliance on STP. (I may still run it, but there are no L2 loops in the topology). Just a thought. --- dre wrote: > If you are looking for the IEEE document, here's a > copy of the draft: > http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/IEEE/802-1w-d10.pdf > > -dre > > ""nrf"" wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED].; > > Does anybody know exactly how Rapid Spanning Tree > works, or have a link > that > > describes it in detail? What I'm really interested > in knowing is the > > technical details that make it better than > old-school STP, and in > > particular, if RSTP is better, then why didn't the > original STP designers > > make it like RSTP in the first place (not trying > to criticize, I'm just > > interested in the evolutionary process of > protocols)? > > > > What I find curious is that I searched and while I > found that web sites > > freely discuss how RSTP is better (or not), or > talk about which vendors > have > > implemented it or not, I haven't found a single > site that describes > exactly > > what RSTP is doing from a technical perspective > and why whatever it is > doing > > is better than STP. Furthermore, I'm not a member > of IEEE, so I guess I > > can't access the 802.1w doc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ===== Robert Padjen __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - sign up for Fantasy Baseball http://sports.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=37050&t=36851 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
