spanning-tree gateway load balancing (STP & GLBP)

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by packethief, Mar 13, 2007.

  1. packethief

    packethief Guest

    Can someone tell me if having the same VLAN that spans multiple
    switches and connects to dual distributions really works with GLBP???
    I have two interconnected distribution switches (Distribution-A and
    Distribution-B) that have multiple access layer switches (access-A &
    access-B) connected to each distribution switch. Each access layer
    switch has the same VLAN (Vlan2) across both switches. .
    Please take a look at this PDF:
    http://www.cisco.com/application/pdf/en/us/guest/netsol/ns432/c649/cdccont_0900aecd801a8a2d.pdf
    On page 40, figure 41 - with VLAN 2 present on two access layer
    switches, and both switches are uplinked to the two distribution
    switches.
    In this configuration, wouldn't one of the uplinks on Distribution
    switch B be blocked not only on the link that connects to distribution-
    A and also to one of the access layer switches.
    I don't see how GLBP can work if you have dual distribution switches
    connected to multiple access layer switches that span Vlans. This
    document seems wrong
    Can someone correct me if I?m wrong.
     
    packethief, Mar 13, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Hello, packethief!
    You wrote on 12 Mar 2007 18:46:53 -0700:

    p> Can someone tell me if having the same VLAN that spans multiple
    p> switches and connects to dual distributions really works with
    p> GLBP??? I have two interconnected distribution switches
    p> (Distribution-A and Distribution-B) that have multiple access
    p> layer switches (access-A & access-B) connected to each
    p> distribution switch. Each access layer switch has the same VLAN
    p> (Vlan2) across both switches. . Please take a look at this PDF:
    p>
    http://www.cisco.com/application/pdf/en/us/guest/netsol/ns432/c649/cdccont_0900aecd801a8a2d.pdf
    p> On page 40, figure 41 - with VLAN 2 present on two access layer
    p> switches, and both switches are uplinked to the two distribution
    p> switches.
    p> In this configuration, wouldn't one of the uplinks on Distribution
    p> switch B be blocked not only on the link that connects to
    p> distribution- A and also to one of the access layer switches.
    p> I don't see how GLBP can work if you have dual distribution
    p> switches connected to multiple access layer switches that span
    p> Vlans. This document seems wrong

    Good catch.

    p> Can someone correct me if I?m wrong.

    No, you are correct. On a bright side, this picture makes somewhat nasty
    inteview question :)

    With best regards,
    Andrey.
     
    Andrey Tarasov, Mar 13, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. packethief

    Trendkill Guest

    On Mar 12, 9:46 pm, "packethief" <> wrote:
    > Can someone tell me if having the same VLAN that spans multiple
    > switches and connects to dual distributions really works with GLBP???
    > I have two interconnected distribution switches (Distribution-A and
    > Distribution-B) that have multiple access layer switches (access-A &
    > access-B) connected to each distribution switch. Each access layer
    > switch has the same VLAN (Vlan2) across both switches. .
    > Please take a look at this PDF:http://www.cisco.com/application/pdf/en/us/guest/netsol/ns432/c649/cd...
    > On page 40, figure 41 - with VLAN 2 present on two access layer
    > switches, and both switches are uplinked to the two distribution
    > switches.
    > In this configuration, wouldn't one of the uplinks on Distribution
    > switch B be blocked not only on the link that connects to distribution-
    > A and also to one of the access layer switches.
    > I don't see how GLBP can work if you have dual distribution switches
    > connected to multiple access layer switches that span Vlans. This
    > document seems wrong
    > Can someone correct me if I?m wrong.


    I do not see a problem with the diagram. In this case, blocking
    between the cores prevents two loops....one in the Core 1 / Core 2 /
    Access 1 network, and one in the Core 1 / Core 2 / Access 2 network.
    By making it block between the cores (only on the VLANs that you need
    GLBP), your arps will be heard by both cores, and you enable your two
    cores to load balance with 2 virtual macs rather than 1 (as it shows
    on page 38). Why would a core switch need to block on another link
    out to the access layer? You don't have connections between the
    access layer switches, so I don't see another loop that needs a block?

    What am I missing?
     
    Trendkill, Mar 13, 2007
    #3
  4. Hello, Trendkill!
    You wrote on 13 Mar 2007 04:54:35 -0700:

    T> I do not see a problem with the diagram. In this case, blocking
    T> between the cores prevents two loops....one in the Core 1 / Core 2
    T> / Access 1 network, and one in the Core 1 / Core 2 / Access 2
    T> network. By making it block between the cores (only on the VLANs
    T> that you need GLBP), your arps will be heard by both cores, and
    T> you enable your two cores to load balance with 2 virtual macs
    T> rather than 1 (as it shows on page 38). Why would a core switch
    T> need to block on another link out to the access layer? You don't
    T> have connections between the access layer switches, so I don't see
    T> another loop that needs a block?

    T> What am I missing?

    Loop - Core1->Access1->Core2->Access2->Core1.

    With best regards,
    Andrey.
     
    Andrey Tarasov, Mar 13, 2007
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Amy L.
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,421
    Amy L.
    Jul 24, 2003
  2. Lior Shadhan

    Unequal Load Balancing + GLBP

    Lior Shadhan, Jan 5, 2005, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    781
    Lior Shadhan
    Jan 5, 2005
  3. Scottmc9
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,521
    David West
    Jun 27, 2005
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,473
  5. Giuseppe
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    2,014
    Giuseppe
    Feb 6, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page