On 06/02/2013 22:05, Steven Raymond wrote: > #1 leaves the interface in permanent blocking state. According to > Brocade tac guy, he says that no traffic except BPDUs are forwarded on > this interface with this command.
#1 will disable MSTP only on the interface, even if you're running other STP instances on the switch. > #2 I believe ceases sending or receiving BPDUs on the interface, and > leaves it in a permanent forwarding state. correct. > What would be the best practice for my ports connecting to customer's L2 > switches, with the goal of isolating & preventing spanning-tree traffic > exchange? I use "no spanning-tree" at the interface level. > In what situations would you choose between "stp-protect", vs "no > spanning-tree", vs "stp-bpdu-guard" ? no spanning-tree at the interface level completely stops all varieties of STP on the interface. no spanning-tree at the vlan level completely stops all varieties of multi-vlan STP for that VLAN. stp-protect causes inbound bpdus to be dropped and counted, and stops stp negotiation from happening on the port, but as fas I remember, the port will still be part of the spanning tree topology. stp-bpdu-guard shuts down the port and puts it into errdisable mode if it sees a bpdu. Nick _______________________________________________ foundry-nsp mailing list [email protected] http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp
