jurwiller at americanbb
Aug 2, 2012, 2:39 PM
Post #12 of 15
(1220 views)
Permalink
|
|
Re: remove spanning-tree without being service effecting
[In reply to]
|
|
I have been having an issue with my few brocade devices in the ring not
blocking BPDU's properly towards my customers so when they hook a switch
up that has spanning-tree on by default, it causes a topology change.
Not cool!! :) I have made Brocade aware of the issues, and they are
working on a firmware patch to fix the issue, but until then I want to
turn off all my spanning-tree so that I don't have random topology
changes occur. Until I have verified that the Brocades block BPDU's
properly, I will have to manually shut down one of my links completing
the ring, and hope that if an actual equipment failure or fiber cut
happens that I can still get to that node to turn up the protection
link.
Hopefully next year's budget will allow me to upgrade the appropriate
equipment so that I can use another ring protection mechanism such as
REP, ERP, or MRP. This is just a stop gap until the brocades are fixed
or I can upgrade my core network. With all the voice and video I have
running, spanning-tree wasn't really doing the trick for me anyway with
the long protection times.
I just wanted to know if there was an easy way to disable it across my
switch-to-switch links without causing any outages; from research, it
seems that bpdu-filter, and then portfast-trunk might do it with no hit
to the network. I just wanted to see if that was truly the case.. I
have tried bpdu-guard with undesired results.
I have no idea what to do if the broken link would come back up; but I
have to do something about customers equipment causing topology changes
all the time, and for now that seems like the best way; this firmware
bug in the fastIron code has really put me in a pickle!
James Urwiller
Lead Internet Services Technician / Network Engineer
CCNA 11567125
American Broadband
402-426-6257 - Office
402-278-1875 - Cell
402-426-6273 - Fax
jurwiller [at] americanbb
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Miehs [mailto:andrew [at] 2sheds]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 4:11 PM
To: James Urwiller
Cc: Pete Templin; cisco-nsp [at] puck
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] remove spanning-tree without being service
effecting
Sent from a mobile device
On 03/08/2012, at 2:24, "James Urwiller" <jurwiller [at] americanbb>
wrote:
> I got clarification on his suggestion, and I will proceed with that. I
> am aware of the risks, the question was how do I mitigate those
risks..
> your comment on leaving it alone doesn't help. if you don't have
> anything good to say; then don't. Im sure the forum doesn't need your
> attitude, I know I don't.
Stupid question, why do you actually want to disable spanning tree?
How do you plan on setting up redundant links?
How will you connect remotely to a switch and enable it when one goes
down?
What happens when the broken link comes up again suddenly?
Andrew
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
|
signature.asc
