Re: [c-nsp] STP and PVST..

[Tom Hill]

On 19/04/17 12:20, Catalin Dominte wrote:
> Yes, until you realise that Cisco MSTP does not talk to Juniper MSTP for
> some odd reason! :)

MSTP is quite problematic between vendors, and most of the time the
reason is that certain operating systems - usually Cisco - have certain
VLANs configured by default, e.g. the FDDI VLANs, VLAN 1, etc.

Because these are hard-configured, and can't be removed, to have the
MSTP domain configuration hash properly and match between switches of
different vendors, you often have to create the missing VLANS on other
switches. Even if you don't/can't use them.

I spent a long time getting Cisco 3650s, Brocade CES, and Dell
PowerConnects (5400 and 6200, which are both different) converging with
MSTP, with all root bridges in the right place for each domain. Due to
the wonderful way in which Extreme XOS works, you simply cannot make it
work.

I learnt that RSTP is fine, and you should just use it if you can. If
you can't choose RSTP, turn MSTP on and *don't* configure any domain
name/VLAN-to-instances. The CIST that it creates will interop just fine
with RSTP devices, and most of your interop headaches will disappear.

If you ever get as far as thinking "Man, I wish I could just..." when
configuring STP, please stop. Find a solution that doesn't involve STP,
PVST, or otherwise relies upon a overburdened sprawl of layer-2.

(Mini rant, I might have had it before, possibly. Sorry.)

-- 
Tom
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] STP and PVST..

[Sebastian Wiesinger]

* Gert Doering  [2017-04-20 16:19]:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:10:21PM +, Scott Granados wrote:
> > Oh boy, I???ve seen that 253 VLAN thing bite a big customer in the 
> > back side.  You add number 254 and whammo!  
> 
> What exactly happens then?  (We currently only use juniper at the edge,
> where no single switch has more than ~40-50 VLANs, so the risk has
> been small :-) )

Well, on Juniper it just fails:

[edit protocols vstp]
  'vlan all'
Cannot configure VSTP on all VLANs when more than 253 VLANs are configured.
Configure vstp vlan-group along with STP or RSTP to cover all VLANs
[edit protocols]
  'vstp'
 Failed to configure vstp on all vlans
error: configuration check-out failed


Regards

Sebastian

-- 
GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A  9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE)
'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE.
-- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] STP and PVST..

[Sander Steffann]

Hi,

> As I recall and I’m happy to be corrected but when you exceed the 253 VLAN 
> limit with PVST the VLANs starting with the 254th added and on revert to RSTP.

I think you have to configure this, but that indeed seems to be what happens:

"RSTP configuration with VSTP was Introduced in Junos OS Release 10.2 RSTP 
configuration with VSTP—VSTP and RSTP can now be configured concurrently. When 
VSTP and RSTP are configured concurrently, the first 253 VLANs are configured 
with VSTP and the remaining VLANs are configured using RSTP."

https://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content=KB18291

Whether that actually means VLAN numbers 1-253 or the first 253 VLANs 
configured I don't know. I would guess the first.

Cheers,
Sander



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] STP and PVST..

[Nick Cutting]

On cisco switches - the next spanning tree instance after you hit the limit, is 
NOT created.

I worked at a place that had cisco HP blade 3120's that had a hard limit of 128 
instances, and we had 180 vlans.
50 or so of the vlans were NOT running spanning tree - but were blocked 
upstream on the 6500 - which has a limit of 1800 instances per chassis which is 
multiplied out by the line cards.
We got close to that limit, but did not hit it, so the loops were avoided.

If I can remember - the last vlans to be created did not run the STP instances 
- but after a reboot, it went up in order.



-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Gert 
Doering
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 10:19 AM
To: Scott Granados <sc...@granados-llc.net>
Cc: Sebastian Wiesinger <sebast...@karotte.org>; cisco-nsp 
<cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] STP and PVST..

Hi,

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:10:21PM +, Scott Granados wrote:
> Oh boy, I???ve seen that 253 VLAN thing bite a big customer in the 
> back side.  You add number 254 and whammo!

What exactly happens then?  (We currently only use juniper at the edge, where 
no single switch has more than ~40-50 VLANs, so the risk has been small :-) )

gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
   //www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de

___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] STP and PVST..

[Scott Granados]

As I recall and I’m happy to be corrected but when you exceed the 253 VLAN 
limit with PVST the VLANs starting with the 254th added and on revert to RSTP.

> On Apr 20, 2017, at 10:18 AM, Gert Doering  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:10:21PM +, Scott Granados wrote:
>> Oh boy, I???ve seen that 253 VLAN thing bite a big customer in the
>> back side.  You add number 254 and whammo!
> 
> What exactly happens then?  (We currently only use juniper at the edge,
> where no single switch has more than ~40-50 VLANs, so the risk has
> been small :-) )
> 
> gert
> --
> USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
>   //www.muc.de/~gert/
> Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de
> fax: +49-89-35655025g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] STP and PVST..

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:10:21PM +, Scott Granados wrote:
> Oh boy, I???ve seen that 253 VLAN thing bite a big customer in the 
> back side.  You add number 254 and whammo!  

What exactly happens then?  (We currently only use juniper at the edge,
where no single switch has more than ~40-50 VLANs, so the risk has
been small :-) )

gert
-- 
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
   //www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] STP and PVST..

[Scott Granados]

Oh boy, I’ve seen that 253 VLAN thing bite a big customer in the back side.  
You add number 254 and whammo!  I’m surprised that’s not been changed since I 
first saw that issue back in 2013


> On Apr 20, 2017, at 5:51 AM, Sebastian Wiesinger  
> wrote:
> 
> * Gert Doering  [2017-04-20 11:03]:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 07:20:58AM -0400, Catalin Dominte wrote:
>>> Yes, until you realise that Cisco MSTP does not talk to Juniper MSTP for
>>> some odd reason! :)
>> 
>> Fortunately Juniper does RPVSTP :-) - much less annoying than MST.
> 
> (unless you have >253 VLANs) ;)
> 
> Regards
> 
> Sebastian
> 
> --
> GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A  9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE)
> 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE 
> SCYTHE.
>-- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant
> ___
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] STP and PVST..

[Sebastian Wiesinger]

* Gert Doering  [2017-04-20 11:03]:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 07:20:58AM -0400, Catalin Dominte wrote:
> > Yes, until you realise that Cisco MSTP does not talk to Juniper MSTP for
> > some odd reason! :)
> 
> Fortunately Juniper does RPVSTP :-) - much less annoying than MST.

(unless you have >253 VLANs) ;)

Regards

Sebastian

-- 
GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A  9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE)
'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE.
-- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] STP and PVST..

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 07:20:58AM -0400, Catalin Dominte wrote:
> Yes, until you realise that Cisco MSTP does not talk to Juniper MSTP for
> some odd reason! :)

Fortunately Juniper does RPVSTP :-) - much less annoying than MST.

gert
-- 
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
   //www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] STP and PVST..

[Nick Cutting]

Once you get all devices to agree on the root bridge for RPVST+ (make sure 
vlan1 is allowed on the inter-vendor trunks) , 

You will also need for fast failover, to configure the downstream ports 
(servers / esx hosts etc) must be running portfast / portfast trunk. This stops 
them from re-converging when there is an upstream failure (which should be 
sub-second failover for R(PV)STP)

What is the other vendor and model number? 
Rapid should work for almost every vendor Except those old HP 5900's, which you 
must use MST.


-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Catalin 
Dominte
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 7:21 AM
To: Nicolas KARP <li...@karp.fr>; Ambedkar <p.ambed...@gmail.com>
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] STP and PVST..

Yes, until you realise that Cisco MSTP does not talk to Juniper MSTP for some 
odd reason! :)


*Catalin Dominte | Senior Network Consultant*

Nocsult Ltd  | 11 Castle Hill  |  Maidenhead  |  Berkshire  |  SL6 4AA  |
 Phone:  +44 (0)1628 302 007

VAT registration number: GB 180957674  |  Company registration number:
08886349
P Please consider the environment - Do you really need to print this email?

THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY 
MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received 
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and its 
attachments from all computers.

On 19 April 2017 at 08:25:21, Nicolas KARP (li...@karp.fr) wrote:

Hello Ambedkar,

Are you able to use MSTP ? That's the standard between Cisco and Non Cisco 
switches :
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/lan-switching/spanning-tree-protocol/24248-147.html

Best Regards,

Nick



2017-04-19 5:53 GMT+02:00 Ambedkar <p.ambed...@gmail.com>:

> Namaskaram,
> I am having a problem of inter-operability of Cisco switches and
Non-Cisco
> switches.
>
> The configuration as follows
>
> Cisco Switches:
> PVST and RPVST (Proprietary protocols)
>
> Non-Cisco Switches:
> STP and RSTP (Open Standard)
>
> In STP/RSTP, both the Cisco and Non-Cisco switches are becoming Root 
> bridges, and when failover has to take place, the time to converge is
more.
> I guess BPDU packets are not exchanged properly.
>
> Any help how to resolve this issue..
>
> Thanks
> P Ambedkar
> ___
> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net 
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net 
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net 
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] STP and PVST..

[Catalin Dominte]

Yes, until you realise that Cisco MSTP does not talk to Juniper MSTP for
some odd reason! :)


*Catalin Dominte | Senior Network Consultant*

Nocsult Ltd  | 11 Castle Hill  |  Maidenhead  |  Berkshire  |  SL6 4AA  |
 Phone:  +44 (0)1628 302 007

VAT registration number: GB 180957674  |  Company registration number:
08886349
P Please consider the environment - Do you really need to print this email?

THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY
MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you
received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
its attachments from all computers.

On 19 April 2017 at 08:25:21, Nicolas KARP (li...@karp.fr) wrote:

Hello Ambedkar,

Are you able to use MSTP ? That's the standard between Cisco and Non Cisco
switches :
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/lan-switching/spanning-tree-protocol/24248-147.html

Best Regards,

Nick



2017-04-19 5:53 GMT+02:00 Ambedkar :

> Namaskaram,
> I am having a problem of inter-operability of Cisco switches and
Non-Cisco
> switches.
>
> The configuration as follows
>
> Cisco Switches:
> PVST and RPVST (Proprietary protocols)
>
> Non-Cisco Switches:
> STP and RSTP (Open Standard)
>
> In STP/RSTP, both the Cisco and Non-Cisco switches are becoming Root
> bridges, and when failover has to take place, the time to converge is
more.
> I guess BPDU packets are not exchanged properly.
>
> Any help how to resolve this issue..
>
> Thanks
> P Ambedkar
> ___
> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] STP and PVST..

[Nicolas KARP]

Hello Ambedkar,

Are you able to use MSTP ? That's the standard between Cisco and Non Cisco
switches :
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/lan-switching/spanning-tree-protocol/24248-147.html

Best Regards,

Nick



2017-04-19 5:53 GMT+02:00 Ambedkar :

> Namaskaram,
> I am having a problem of inter-operability of Cisco switches and Non-Cisco
> switches.
>
> The configuration as follows
>
> Cisco Switches:
> PVST and RPVST (Proprietary protocols)
>
> Non-Cisco Switches:
> STP and RSTP (Open Standard)
>
> In STP/RSTP, both the Cisco and Non-Cisco switches are becoming Root
> bridges, and when failover has to take place, the time to converge is more.
> I guess BPDU packets are not exchanged properly.
>
> Any help how to resolve this issue..
>
> Thanks
> P Ambedkar
> ___
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

[c-nsp] STP and PVST..

[Ambedkar]

Namaskaram,
I am having a problem of inter-operability of Cisco switches and Non-Cisco
switches.

The configuration as follows

Cisco Switches:
PVST and RPVST (Proprietary protocols)

Non-Cisco Switches:
STP and RSTP (Open Standard)

In STP/RSTP, both the Cisco and Non-Cisco switches are becoming Root
bridges, and when failover has to take place, the time to converge is more.
I guess BPDU packets are not exchanged properly.

Any help how to resolve this issue..

Thanks
P Ambedkar
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/