In our IT team we have different point of views on how we should configure STP at some of our sites.
Let explain me :
All our critical sites (spoke sites) are connected with a STP loop topology to allow a redundant path in case a link fail.
All our servers/services are centralized at a hub site. Our SLA for critical sites is to provide 24h/7d support.
The WAN link connection is always connected on port 1 on the root or master switch. If we have a redundant link, it would be connected on the 1 first port on a second switch.
Each spoke site has the main switch forced/elected as a root for Spanning tree topology, but no switch is actually configured as a backup root. In case where the primary root fail (official one), a new switch will be elected as the root but my concern is that the new topology formed might not be always predictive or optimum.
Just for precision, we don't want to load balance trafic between those 2 links, on those site we have only one VLAN and it's not on our planning to change this at this time.
Based on lectures of the BCMSN Certification exam, my understanding was that we have advantages to define a second switch as a secondary root to maintain the service.
Someone in our IT team thinks that forcing a second switch of each site make STP more difficult to troubleshoot. In his mind, the replacement of the primary switch is a simple matter of hours and it is not worth spending time or resource on STP tuning.
Do you have any arguments, opinions or thoughts to share on this topic ?