spanning-tree backbonefast + rapid-pvst+

Unanswered Question
Feb 22nd, 2008

Is there a need to use spanning-tree backbonefast on core switches when using rapid-pvst+?

Is there a need to use spanning-tree uplinkfast on access switches while running rapid-pvst+?

I have this problem too.
0 votes
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 4 (1 ratings)
lamav Fri, 02/22/2008 - 09:32

If you use rapid-pvst+, backbonefast and uplinkfast are already enabled by default, so you dont have a choice.



Francois Tallet Fri, 02/22/2008 - 09:55

The equivalent functionality of backbone fast and uplinkfast are built in RSTP and MST. It's not exactly similar in the way that there is no need for RLQs for backbone fast (RSTP/MST are actually much more efficient than backbone fast!).

Both backbonefast and uplinkfast CLI have no effect in RSTP/MST modes. Actually, uplinkfast still has an effect, it increases the port and bridge priorities in order to lower the chances of the bridge to be root and have designated ports. The idea being that a customer transitioning from stp to rstp should keep the same final topology.




This Discussion