Cisco Support Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Announcements

Welcome to Cisco Support Community. We would love to have your feedback.

For an introduction to the new site, click here. If you'd prefer to explore, try our test area to get started. And see here for current known issues.

New Member

Rapid-PVST topology changes on Edge/PortFast ports? (6500 IOS 12.1(13)E6)

We recently migrated our server farm to a set of 6500/Sup2 running IOS 12.1(13)E6.

The boxes are configured with Rapid-PVST, and all server access ports are configured with PortFast, thus acting as RSTP Edge ports:

r-edb1-14/sa-1#sh run int fast 9/23

Building configuration...

Current configuration : 188 bytes

!

interface FastEthernet9/23

description Digizuite01-A

no ip address

duplex full

speed 100

switchport

switchport access vlan 264

switchport mode access

spanning-tree portfast

end

r-edb1-14/sa-1#sh spanning-tree int fast 9/23

Vlan Role Sts Cost Prio.Nbr Type

---------------- ---- --- --------- -------- --------------------------------

VLAN0264 Desg FWD 19 128.535 Edge P2p

http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/473/146.html clearly states that only NON-Edge ports should cause a Topology Change.

But we're logging concurrent SNMP traps of Topology Changes and Link Up/Down on server access ports, indicating that the switch treats these Link Up/Down events as Topology Changes (9/23 and 9/38 on the two switches are two NICs on the same server, which explains why they're in sync):

1057729771 7 Wed Jul 09 07:49:31 2003 r-edb1-14.dr.dk - linkUp trap received from enterprise cisco.1.283 with 4 arguments: ifIndex=131; ifDescr=FastEthernet9/23; ifType=ethernetCsmacd; locIfReason=up;1 .1.3.6.1.6.3.1.1.5.4.1.3.6.1.4.1.9.1.283 0

1057729771 7 Wed Jul 09 07:49:31 2003 r-edb1-15.dr.dk - linkUp trap received from enterprise cisco.1.283 with 4 arguments: ifIndex=98; ifDescr=FastEthernet9/38; ifType=ethernetCsmacd; locIfReason=up;1 .1.3.6.1.6.3.1.1.5.4.1.3.6.1.4.1.9.1.283 0

1057729771 4 Wed Jul 09 07:49:31 2003 r-edb1-14.dr.dk - Spanning tree topology change from enterprise dot1dBridge;2 .1.3.6.1.2.1.17.0.2 0

1057729771 4 Wed Jul 09 07:49:31 2003 r-edb1-15.dr.dk - Spanning tree topology change from enterprise dot1dBridge;2 .1.3.6.1.2.1.17.0.2 0

1057729777 4 Wed Jul 09 07:49:37 2003 r-edb1-15.dr.dk - Spanning tree topology change from enterprise dot1dBridge;2 .1.3.6.1.2.1.17.0.2 0

1057729777 4 Wed Jul 09 07:49:37 2003 r-edb1-14.dr.dk - Spanning tree topology change from enterprise dot1dBridge;2 .1.3.6.1.2.1.17.0.2 0

1057729777 7 Wed Jul 09 07:49:37 2003 r-edb1-15.dr.dk - linkDown trap received from enterprise cisco.1.283 with 4 arguments: ifIndex=98; ifDescr=FastEthernet9/38; ifType=ethernetCsmacd; locIfReason=Lost Carrier;3 .1.3.6.1.6.3.1.1.5.3.1.3.6.1.4.1.9.1.283 0

1057729777 7 Wed Jul 09 07:49:37 2003 r-edb1-14.dr.dk - linkDown trap received from enterprise cisco.1.283 with 4 arguments: ifIndex=131; ifDescr=FastEthernet9/23; ifType=ethernetCsmacd; locIfReason=Lost Carrier;3 .1.3.6.1.6.3.1.1.5.3.1.3.6.1.4.1.9.1.283 0

1057729779 7 Wed Jul 09 07:49:39 2003 r-edb1-15.dr.dk - linkUp trap received from enterprise cisco.1.283 with 4 arguments: ifIndex=98; ifDescr=FastEthernet9/38; ifType=ethernetCsmacd; locIfReason=up;1 .1.3.6.1.6.3.1.1.5.4.1.3.6.1.4.1.9.1.283 0

1057729779 7 Wed Jul 09 07:49:39 2003 r-edb1-14.dr.dk - linkUp trap received from enterprise cisco.1.283 with 4 arguments: ifIndex=131; ifDescr=FastEthernet9/23; ifType=ethernetCsmacd; locIfReason=up;1 .1.3.6.1.6.3.1.1.5.4.1.3.6.1.4.1.9.1.283 0

1057729779 4 Wed Jul 09 07:49:39 2003 r-edb1-15.dr.dk - Spanning tree topology change from enterprise dot1dBridge;2 .1.3.6.1.2.1.17.0.2 0

1057729779 4 Wed Jul 09 07:49:39 2003 r-edb1-14.dr.dk - Spanning tree topology change from enterprise dot1dBridge;2 .1.3.6.1.2.1.17.0.2 0

Am I overlooking something here or just facing a bug?

My obvious concern is that we end up facing unicast flooding, as Topology Changes will cause a flush of MAC address tables in the switches in the server farm.

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions

Re: Rapid-PVST topology changes on Edge/PortFast ports? (6500 IO

Hi,

you are correct, it's a bug.

I has been detected on Cat3550 as CSCeb48939 already.

Regards,

Milan

1 REPLY

Re: Rapid-PVST topology changes on Edge/PortFast ports? (6500 IO

Hi,

you are correct, it's a bug.

I has been detected on Cat3550 as CSCeb48939 already.

Regards,

Milan

585
Views
0
Helpful
1
Replies