STP

Unanswered Question
Apr 1st, 2008

Hi All

I have, one 3560 switch centrally located and 2-Linksys SRW2400 connected at different location via individual VLAN (3560(vlan1) --to--> 1-Linksys (default vlan) and 3560(vlan2) --to--> 2-Linksys (default vlan)).

I need to configure redudant link between linksys and 3560, i want to use STP but as both is different vendor i found 3560 support PVST+, RPVST+ and MSTP and Linksys support Classic STP, Rapid STP and MSTP.

I wants to know is that possible to connect two links between 3560 and linksys and configuring STP in between to prevent loop?

Thanks in advance..!!

Dhaval Tandel

I have this problem too.
0 votes
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 0 (0 ratings)
Loading.
evsrajatgupta Tue, 04/01/2008 - 06:09

Hi

try Common Spanning Tree (CST-802.1Q). it is simple and support multiple vender.

please rate.

Francois Tallet Tue, 04/01/2008 - 12:42

Hi Dhaval,

If the links between the cisco and the linksys are configured as trunks on the Cisco side, I would recommend you use the MST mode on the Cisco and linksys. If they are "access ports", then you could also go for rapid-PVST on the cisco side and either Rapid-STP or MST on the linksys side.

If you don't plan to do any kind of fancy vlan load balancing, just go for the first option and use MST everywhere. Set the root appropriately (probably on the Cisco by using say: "spanning-tree mst 0 priority 8192"), and that should be enough;-)

Regards,

Francois

lamav Tue, 04/01/2008 - 14:23

Mr Handel:

You probably dont know this, but besides being an expert in a lot of things, Francois' specialty just happens to be STP. So, you're in luck to get a BMF like Francois to help you with STP. :-)

Victor

dhavaltandel Wed, 04/02/2008 - 07:20

Thanks a lot Francois,

for getting time to give your input.

I will check with MST in my scenario, further i do not have Trunk between Cisco and Linksys, Linksys is configured with default VLAN and Cisco is on on individual VLAN for linksys switch and the link is access link.

Thanks again,

Dhaval Tandel

Actions

This Discussion