Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Cisco > STP and high availability

Reply
Thread Tools

STP and high availability

 
 
anybody43@hotmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2005

> This is what I wanted to hear.
> Anyway, that document leaves me a bit puzzled ...
> at first it says: use a L3 link between distribution switches, don't
> use a L2 link because keeping in sync HSRP and STP for different VLANs
> is tedious and error prone. Then it goes on showing a config with HSRP
> + L3 link + STP root.



No, this is what you want to hear
That's my view anyway.



Access1
/ \
/ \
L2 / \ L2
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ L3 \
Dist1-----------------Dist2
\ /
\ /
\ /
L2 \ / L2
\ /
\ /
\ /
Access2

No STP needed, no unicast flooding due to HSRP
and asymetric routing. Never been there done that
however thats the one I like the looks of.

Each VLAN is constrained to only one access switch
although each Access switch can support more then one
VLAN if trunking or multiple parallel uplinks are used.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
DigitalVinyl
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2005
WHat you say in text and what you draw is different. By not allowing
VLAN trunks to exist beyond the distribs (which means you aren't using
VTP) you essentially divide you network into multiple L2s topologies.

For one VLAN you have
> Access1
> / \
> / \
> L2 / \ L2
> / \
> / \
> / \
> / L3 \
> Dist1-----------------Dist2


and for another VLAN you have this
> Dist1-----------------Dist2
> \ /
> \ /
> \ /
> L2 \ / L2
> \ /
> \ /
> \ /
> Access2


It is up to you to ensure you never misconfigure any vlan or trunk to
allow the diagram you drew to exist. That's why people run STP. One
misconfigured trunk or vlan and you've just taken out your network.

Secondly, are you saying you won't be running HSRP?
If you run HSRP You still have issues with who talks to which router.
If an Access2 device uses a router on DIST1 and an Access1 device uses
a router on DIST2 you wil get assymetric routing and promot unicast
flooding. DIST1 will know about access1 and DIST2 will know about
access 2.


Also if you have hybrid DISTs which many allow devices on DIST1 will
pass throught Access1 to reach DISt2 within the same VLAN.

http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>No, this is what you want to hear
>That's my view anyway.
>
>
>
> Access1
> / \
> / \
> L2 / \ L2
> / \
> / \
> / \
> / L3 \
> Dist1-----------------Dist2
> \ /
> \ /
> \ /
> L2 \ / L2
> \ /
> \ /
> \ /
> Access2
>
>No STP needed, no unicast flooding due to HSRP
>and asymetric routing. Never been there done that
>however thats the one I like the looks of.
>
>Each VLAN is constrained to only one access switch
>although each Access switch can support more then one
>VLAN if trunking or multiple parallel uplinks are used.


DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
kate0104@hotmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2005
Since one PPT slide is worth 1000 words, I read "Campus Network
Multilayer Architecture and Design Guidelines", which you can find here
and probably already know very well:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/netsol/ns...s_package.html

Slide 67 says that with "Layer3 distribution interconnection" you have
"no spanning tree" and "all links (are) active". The slide shows what
seems a "best case scenario" with VLANs not spanning more than one
switch each. There is no mention of STP roots. Note that in the
previous slide, showing a Layer2 interconnection, a STP root is
explicitly configured.

Slide 87 on the other hand shows what looks the very same
configuration, with a "Layer3 distribution interconnection" and VLANs
not spanning more than one switch each, but in this case it suggests to
do "STP root and HSRP primary tuning".

 
Reply With Quote
 
anybody43@hotmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-25-2005
Kate0... said
> Slide 87 on the other hand shows what looks the very same
> configuration, with a "Layer3 distribution interconnection" and VLANs
> not spanning more than one switch each, but in this case it suggests to
> do "STP root and HSRP primary tuning".


Well, even Cisco arn't perfect. Clearly a missprint

Slide 87 has no need of STP for it to function "as designed".

I think that I read those slides a while back and became a convert
Bye bye L2 loops, hello wire speed L3:--)))


I agree that it is probably best to leave STP on.

I think that the proposed design will be (almost) free of
unicast flooding.
The only L2 device in the network that needs to know
the mac address of an access-layer connected PC (say)
is directly connected to that very PC and therefore will
almost always know it's MAC/port relationship.

 
Reply With Quote
 
zephyrus zephyrus is offline
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1
 
      12-26-2011
Dear all.

I design a campus Lan like in the PIC that I attached.
My question is : Do we have Loop in it or not?

In CCNP switch book,it said that,if we use HSRP in Dis. switches, STP always be Converge in layer 2 (access switches),WHY?!!

Tanx.

Image : http://www.mediafire.com/?4n41nwtigp0j5jq
 

Last edited by zephyrus; 12-26-2011 at 08:21 AM..
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NAT and high availability linguafr Cisco 0 11-21-2006 05:40 PM
WANdisco Announces New High Availability Disaster Recovery Solution for CVS, Subversion and CVSNT Elaine Java 0 05-09-2006 11:45 PM
Load Balance and High Availability. rcp Cisco 5 07-25-2005 03:03 PM
Load Balance and High Availability. rcp Cisco 0 07-20-2005 04:16 AM
Checkpoint FW1 High Availability mode and Cisco switches. PJML Cisco 4 01-23-2004 11:52 PM



Advertisments