Question for Spanning tree experts

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by John Carter, Jan 9, 2006.

  1. John Carter

    John Carter Guest

    Folks:
    Basically, I'm trying to understand the importance of "root switch". Is
    it really necessary for the "high end" switch to be root switch? I
    accidently ran into a situation where I have an access switch as a root
    swtich for one Vlan instead of the preferred core switch.Things seem to
    be working and I'm stumped why we didn't see any network slowness.
    While I'm in the middle of the CCIE certification, I figured this was a
    good way to learn more about spanning tree.

    I have a fairly simple network, with a potential for growth and hence
    the need for proper STP configuratoin. I'm trying to understand the
    worse case scenario for a misconfigured "root" switch. I understand
    that I can force the root switch to be the core switch by changing the
    priority and also understand the use root gaurd protection and other
    techniques.

    Here is what my network looks like:

    Switch (M) Core switch and also desired STP root, VLAN 20,30,40 )
    / |
    \
    switch A(VLAN 20) switchB (VLAN 20) switch C (VLAN 30)

    Now it turns out that becuase of lower MAC ID, switch A become my root
    for VLAN 20.

    Here is what my STP diagram looks like for VLAN 20.

    Switch A (root)
    DP
    |
    RP
    Switch M (Core)
    DP
    |
    RP
    Switch B

    Questions:
    1. Things seem to be working with switch A as the root switch. Where
    should I look for spanning tree misconfiguration/bottlenecks?
    2. What is the worse case scenario with having switch A as the STP
    root?

    -JC
     
    John Carter, Jan 9, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. John Carter

    John Smith Guest



    as far as i know , the reasons why cisco recommends a higher end model to
    be the root switch (and a centrally located switch) is just processing
    power. u also need to consider what version of STP you are using, some
    versions are more processor intenstive than others.
    sh spanning-tree summary (will tell u which STP version/mode)
    sh proc memory | inclu Span (will tell u how much memory is being used by
    STP)
    some STP modes aren't available on some switches. you should also consider
    this.
     
    John Smith, Jan 9, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. John Carter

    stephen Guest

    spanning tree tuning only really matters if you have loops - the whole point
    of spanning tree is to remove backup links from the topology until you have
    a fault. you choose a switch near the core of the network so that the key
    links that should carry traffic are forwarding - i.e. the default tree
    should closely echo the default network topology.

    since your topology doesnt show any loops (if i am reading it correctly) -
    then all links will be forwarding, so any switch acting as root gives the
    same set of links in the forwarding state.

    traditionally there was another reason - to stay inside the STP hop count on
    all paths. Since most modern networks only have a couple of layers of
    switches, this is less of an issue.
    not a lot. you need a bigger network before it makes a practical difference.

    1 thing you havent mentioned is how many spanning trees you are running -
    sounds like at least 2 (1 per VLAN).

    FWIW i prefer a design that doesnt use spanning tree to suppress loops at
    layer 2, since some faults (like a 1 way fibre link) will end up with
    circulating broadcasts and a packet storm.

    better to have no spanning tree loops, resilience at layer 3 and just have
    spanning tree there to "fix" any problems like accidentally patching 2
    switches together....
     
    stephen, Jan 9, 2006
    #3
  4. John Carter

    Merv Guest

    One of the reason for having a known root bridge is to troubleshoot
    spanning tree toplogy issues.
     
    Merv, Jan 10, 2006
    #4
  5. John Carter

    John Carter Guest

    Thanks to everyone who responded and explaining the concept.

    Stephen:
    I have 8 vlans and core directly connected to all the access
    switches.About 3 vlans had incorrectly configured root because of lower
    mac address.

    BTW, I didn't understand the last two paragraphs of your response.
    Looks like you have something really valuable to say but I'm not
    reading it correctly. What do you mean by "Design that doesn't use
    spanning tree" and "reslilience at layer 3"?

    Thanks again for your response.

    -JC
     
    John Carter, Jan 10, 2006
    #5
  6. John Carter

    stephen Guest

    classic spanning tree is inherently fragile, since loss of BPDU packets
    arriving on a port is taken to mean that a suppressed loop in the bridge
    network should be turned on.

    this works well in practice most of the time - until you get a bug, a
    heavily overloaded device that cant send / recieve often enough.

    Or if 1 break a fibre or UTP link in 1 direction, spanning tree may cause
    the far end to start sending packets to "heal" the break. But if the other
    direction is still forwarding, your network converts into a broadcast packet
    replicator.

    1 way around this is not to have layer 2 loops. Routing can cope with dual
    paths forwarding in parallel, so 2 layer3 switches in the centre provide
    resilience. You use layer 3 switches to dice your network into multiple
    small layer 2 subnets, (maybe only 1 chassis or stack of switches).

    each VLAN / spanning tree is confined to small subnet on a couple of
    switches rather than smeared across a set of switches in parallel with all
    the other VLANs.

    think of a dual centred star, with each edge node being a layer 2 switch
    with 2 uplinks, and the 2 hubs being layer 3 switches. a spanning tree
    covers the edge switch, and 2 uplinks, but doesnt go anywhere else, so no
    loops to suppress.
     
    stephen, Jan 10, 2006
    #6
  7. John Carter

    Kevin Widner Guest

    Good spanning tree design goes much deeper than just taking into
    consideration the CPU power of a switch. It is important for
    traffic/bandwidth management, and deterministic path selection. Once
    you are past 200 vlans in an environment, you should seriously consider
    something other than PVST. Something like MST would be much better
    suited.

    That beig said, looks like you network is small enough to not make much
    of a difference.

    As far as setting up a layer 3 based hub/spoke design, it becomes
    impractical and un-manageable in a large environment. Don't go down
    this road if you expect significant growth. Plus it will limit your
    connectivity at the access layer to only those vlans for which that
    "spoke" was setup for.
     
    Kevin Widner, Jan 11, 2006
    #7
  8. John Carter

    anybody43 Guest

    I'm trying to understand the importance of "root switch". Is
    Not yet mentioned specifically (IIRC) is that traffic
    tends to go from the source towards the root and
    then away from the root to the destination.
    Imagine a squirrel moving between two arbtrary
    branches of a tree. On average the above logistics
    are true although there are many exceptions
    e.g. the case of simple trees (Cactus).
    With the Access switch as root core traffic can
    and up flowing through the access layer.
    Not good at all.

    Hmmm. Cisco seem to disagree. The current design
    recomendations (for large environments) seem to be
    to do L3 right out to the access switches with no
    L2 loops _at_all_. Zero.

    PVST, MST forget the whole lot:)))

    The Access Layer broadcast domains each consist of
    a VLAN on a single switch and its two uplinks.

    This even applies to Wireless roaming. I read recently
    that each user gets their own L3 (GRE ?) tunnel back to
    the wireless concentration point. This allows roaming
    without changing the IP address of the end station.
     
    anybody43, Jan 11, 2006
    #8
  9. John Carter

    Kevin Widner Guest

    Hmmm. Cisco seem to disagree. The current design
    I am from the data center environment. So speaking from this
    perspective, I would never create one subnet per access layer switch
    and then route that traffic. It seems absolutely absurd and much more
    management required. It wouldn't be the first time I have seen Cisco
    recommend something that isn't necessarily the best solution. Cisco's
    goal is to sell every access layer switch with an upgraded Layer3 image
    = more $$. Plus it forces you to go to an IOS based access layer switch
    thus furthering their mission to eliminate CatOS.

    My question is, my data center uses redundant connections to redundant
    access layer switches. If the recommendation is to setup L3 links
    between the access layer and distribution, then do I have to setup HSRP
    between the access layer switches? Also, how do I move a server from
    one cabinet to the other without changing its IP address? And now, do I
    have to setup new subnets for each access layer switch? So each cabinet
    gets its own unique subnet for application traffic, then a new subnet
    for backup traffic and yet another subnet for management traffic. Then
    another subnet to make the L3 connection to the distribution. Four
    different unique subnets per cabinet multiplied by a modest 100
    cabinets per distribution and that makes one hell of a nightmare for
    even a medium sized environment. Where do you put the access lists?
    Instead of maintaining an access list per vlan on the distribution, you
    might still be able to get by with only doing access lists at the
    distribution, but now you would have to do one per access layer switch.

    One thing I do agree with, Cisco would like you to eliminate the
    dependancy on spanning tree all together if they can get you to. That
    sounds great, but I think it is impractical in a redundant server farm
    environment. On the other hand, I have seen it work well in a desktop
    environment - L3 at the access layer, just like you are describing. Do
    you have a link to that design recommendation? I would be interested in
    seeing what they are recommending.
     
    Kevin Widner, Jan 19, 2006
    #9
  10. John Carter

    slim Guest

    Transit networks are used all of the time. They are extensively used in
    large enterprise and service provider networks. However, you don't
    create transit network for access devices...more on this in a moment.

    It wouldn't be the first time I have seen Cisco
    If you tune the routing protocol timers, you can get subsecond
    reconvergence. You also don't have to deal with the arcane nature of
    STP. For example, issues surrouding assymetrical L2 paths that can cause
    unicast flooding of traffic when certain paths become unavailable. Even
    with RTSP, certain path failure conditions can be challenging to deal
    with and failover time still takes several seconds (IIRC, 6 seconds to
    detect that a neighbor is no longer available).
    No, you can also consider gateway load balancing protocl (GLBP)

    Also, how do I move a server from
    Again, you wouldn't create transit subnets for your edge devices.
    Transit networks are utilized to handoff between different network
    modules. Backbone to distribution is a good example.
    Cisco has been pushing the Enterprise Composite Network model. In your
    example, your server farm would sit in the "Server Farm Module". You
    would bring that into an appropriate switch, L2 or L3. Your farm could
    be on a single subnet if desired. The server farm module would
    interconnect to the Campus Backbone. The Campus Backbone could be
    composed of other modules such as "Building Distribution" and the like.
    Then, the backbone hands off traffic to other modules like the Internet
    module, VPN/remote access, WAN, etc, all via the "Edge Distribution".

    Not that I've drank the Cisco kool-aid too much, but I have found this
    expanded network modularity very useful when adding new services to my
    network, particularly remote access and VPN integration. While it may be
    good for Cisco in terms of more equipment possibilites, there is no rule
    that says you can't combine modules in certain equipment configurations.
    The model provides for the things you're questioning, such as ACL
    placement. Well, in this model, you'd place ACL's between the
    appropriate module and not on every interface everywhere. You have built
    in context for your ACL's since they are placed in relation to module
    function (and, they're likely to be more compact). You don't have an
    uber-ACL that does everything on high-traffic interfaces.

    The model allows you to scale the network without continuous redesign.
    It also lends itself to better security methods, management, and fault
    isolation/troubleshooting. Spanning tree has its place, but frankly, I
    think it's safe to say that it doesn't belong in the core. I think this
    is especially true today as enterprise networks are carrying time/delay
    sensitive traffic such as voice. A good example of why sub-second
    convergence is needed can be found in VoIP. Without extremely fast
    convergence, phone calls will get dropped. I believe this is the main
    reason why you're seeing the push towards a L3 core. Unless your traffic
    mix is email and websurfing, STP is just too darned slow! :)

    Again, I've found the Enterprise Composite Network model very useful in
    the real world.
     
    slim, Jan 19, 2006
    #10
  11. John Carter

    Kevin Widner Guest

    Hey Send me a link! I want to see more. Without transit subnets, I'm
    not sure I'm understanding the proposed setup.
    I agree, that is why I thought we were talking about the access layer,
    not the core.

    Let me say that we may be in favor of the same thing. I'm specifically
    speaking of the connection from my access layer switches into the
    distribution that IS my server farm. Not how my server farm connects to
    the rest of my network. With several hundred servers all sharing the
    same subnet or vlan, split across 60 access layer switches, I can't see
    the benefit in trying to seperate them via L3. Although, I'm always
    open to seeing new ideas! Is there a link to a drawing or proposed
    architecture for a server farm environment?
     
    Kevin Widner, Jan 19, 2006
    #11
  12. John Carter

    stephen Guest

    more "architecture" than anyone could ask for....
    http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/779/largeent/it/ese/srnd.html

    the campus design is the best place to start with for this - most of the
    data centre docs focus on load balancing, security and similar add ons.
     
    stephen, Jan 19, 2006
    #12
  13. John Carter

    Kevin Widner Guest

    Excellent link, thank you. Looks lik the Cisco recommendation for L3
    access layer is more geared to a campus model, not the data center.
    This is what I was suspecting. I will continue to read up though!
     
    Kevin Widner, Jan 19, 2006
    #13
  14. John Carter

    slim Guest

    Stephan has sent you some good links...enjoy!
     
    slim, Jan 20, 2006
    #14
  15. John Carter

    anybody43 Guest

    Thanks for the link.

    Very nice looking material.
     
    anybody43, Jan 20, 2006
    #15
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.