You'll note I stopped short of recommending you disable STP altogether, as it does prevent truly stupid problems like that. What I said was, never design a network that deliberately uses STP as anything other than a last-ditch fail-safe. -Adam
Nathan Eisenberg <[email protected]> wrote: >> - LAG eliminates the need for spanning-tree. Avoid STP in your network >> if at all possible... Or rather, always design L2 networks so that >> spanning tree has nothing to do, i.e. there are never multiple paths. >> Note that each LAG is considered a single interface for STP purposes. > >Eh, I think you're dismissing STP way too readily. > >LAG eliminates the need for spanning tree *for those two ports*. You still >need it if there's any possibility your users/noc crew/janitors might do >something silly like plug both ports on a Polycom VOIP phone into the wall >jacks. Half of the reason that STP is a really good idea on access networks >is that it prevents BAD alternate paths. I can't tell you how many networks >I've audited where STP has been keeping things running without anyone even >knowing about it. > >Nathan > >_______________________________________________ >List mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list > _______________________________________________ List mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
