VTP - Sync

[shovels3]

Hey,

I created a vlan server i now want to set all other switches as clients

When i created the vlan it was passed to the other switches...this caused a delay in the network thus reducing performance

Will this delay occur again when i set the other switches as client???

Thanks

[milan.kulik]

Hi,

what exactly happend when you created the new VLAN?

I've never noticed any "delay in the network thus reducing performance" when I created new VLAN in my VTP domain.

Changing other switches to client mode should not have any influence to network performance.

Regards,

Milan

[shovels3]

Hi,

I have a cat3550(vlan server)

with a gb feed to 2 cat2980

The gb feed to the cat2980 went into an inconsistent state for aprox 2-3min(orange light)

it then returned to green

warning message recieved was

X-Mailer: Cisco CMS Event Notification Mailer

Device: Cat3550

001519: .Sep 12 09:57:22: %SPANTREE-2-UNBLOCK_CONSIST_PORT: Unblocking GigabitEthernet0/11 on VLAN0001. Port consistency restored.

Where gi0/11 is feed to cat2980.

Thanks

shovels

[milan.kulik]

Hi,

there should be some previous message in a syslog explaining what kind of port inconsistency appeared. Usually it's a port configured as a trunk on one side and as an access port on the other side.

Are you sure the trunk is configured correctly (negotiation, encapsulation, VLANs allowed, etc.)?

Regards,

Milan

[shovels3]

Milan,

Syslog read...

Severity 7

Facility SPANTREE

Mnemonic RECV_1Q_NON_TRUNK

Received 802.1Q BPDU on non trunk GigabitEthernet0/10 VLAN1

I'm testing in a live environment.

I hadnt configured the trunks and encapsulation as before i could this happened. That was my next step.

This then occurred so i'm wary to move on as people are currently using the network

Can you give me some guide on the correct configuration?

what side to i allow the vlan access?

I was going to use ISL?

is this the best way?

Thanks again

[milan.kulik]

Well,

the bad luck is you are using one of the latest Cisco product (3550) together with a pretty old one (2980). And the default behavour has been changed in the meantime.

If I understand the syslog correctly the message was received from 2980.

And it means that 3550 on the other side is either trying to negotiate (default behaviour) or even is configured for 802.1q trunk while the 2980 is configured for access line.

Unfortunately I've got no 2980 in my network and I've never been working with it.

AFAIK, 2980 should support 802.1q.

So I'd try to configure on 3550:

interface GigabitEthernet0/11

switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q (or ISL if both 2980 supports it)

switchport mode trunk

switchport nonegotiate

and

set trunk 0/10 nonegotiate dot1q 1-1005

on 2980.

See

http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/c3550/12114ea1/3550scg/swvlan.htm#1200245

and

http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/cat4000/8_1/config/e_trunk.htm

for details.

HTH,

Milan