HPE GreenLake Administration
- Community Home
- >
- Networking
- >
- Legacy
- >
- Switches, Hubs, Modems
- >
- spanning-tree interopability problems with cisco
Switches, Hubs, and Modems
1829103
Members
2191
Online
109986
Solutions
Forums
Categories
Company
Local Language
back
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Forums
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Discussions
back
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Blogs
Information
Community
Resources
Community Language
Language
Forums
Blogs
Topic Options
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
11-22-2005 06:17 AM
11-22-2005 06:17 AM
spanning-tree interopability problems with cisco
Here's my scenario:
Switch A is a cisco 3550, running an 802.1q trunk to switch B, which is a Procurve 2524. The Procurve (switch B) has a port set to vlan 95 (untagged/native). Switch B connects back to another cisco switch (switch C) that I have no control over.
The problem is this: switch C is seeing 802.1Q BPDUs coming thru the Procurve switch (which I actually think are originating from switch A, not the Procurve), and switch C disables the port because the BPDU types do not match. I can't run a 802.1Q trunk between switch B and C (like I said, switch C is out of my control). The only solution to this that I've found thus far is to disable spanning-tree altogether for vlan 95 on switch A. I can leave spanning-tree up for all the other VLANs and everything is fine.
I know what the problem really traces back to, that would be cisco's insistance of using PVST, without the option to revert to the actual 802.1D standard. My question is this: is there any way I can set the Procurve to not pass along the BPDUs coming out of switch A, or else a way to "force" the port to a non-trunking mode (ala the cisco command "switchport mode access")? I know I could just leave spanning tree disabled for VLAN 95 (there is literally only the one port in that VLAN, it's only used for an uplink outside the network), but since I don't have this problem in an all-cisco environment, I'd like to figure out some other solution.
I was thinking of maybe playing around with using MST instead of 802.1D, but the 2500-series Procurves don't appear to support it (only the 2600s and higher), plus then there's the issue of older cisco's (2900xl's for instance) not supporting it either.
Of course, what I'd REALLY like is for $(*@#@@!!'ing cisco to just adhere to the standard, but we know that won't be happening.
Does anybody have any ideas on this?
Switch A is a cisco 3550, running an 802.1q trunk to switch B, which is a Procurve 2524. The Procurve (switch B) has a port set to vlan 95 (untagged/native). Switch B connects back to another cisco switch (switch C) that I have no control over.
The problem is this: switch C is seeing 802.1Q BPDUs coming thru the Procurve switch (which I actually think are originating from switch A, not the Procurve), and switch C disables the port because the BPDU types do not match. I can't run a 802.1Q trunk between switch B and C (like I said, switch C is out of my control). The only solution to this that I've found thus far is to disable spanning-tree altogether for vlan 95 on switch A. I can leave spanning-tree up for all the other VLANs and everything is fine.
I know what the problem really traces back to, that would be cisco's insistance of using PVST, without the option to revert to the actual 802.1D standard. My question is this: is there any way I can set the Procurve to not pass along the BPDUs coming out of switch A, or else a way to "force" the port to a non-trunking mode (ala the cisco command "switchport mode access")? I know I could just leave spanning tree disabled for VLAN 95 (there is literally only the one port in that VLAN, it's only used for an uplink outside the network), but since I don't have this problem in an all-cisco environment, I'd like to figure out some other solution.
I was thinking of maybe playing around with using MST instead of 802.1D, but the 2500-series Procurves don't appear to support it (only the 2600s and higher), plus then there's the issue of older cisco's (2900xl's for instance) not supporting it either.
Of course, what I'd REALLY like is for $(*@#@@!!'ing cisco to just adhere to the standard, but we know that won't be happening.
Does anybody have any ideas on this?
1 REPLY 1
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
11-23-2005 10:49 AM
11-23-2005 10:49 AM
Re: spanning-tree interopability problems with cisco
I have seen two spanning tree ideosynchrasies
when mixing Cisco and another vendor (it was
Extreme when I ran into this).
Cisco switch sends the BPDU's on trunks
SNAP encapsulated. The Extreme switch
that received them did not un-SNAP
them, and forwared them as usual traffic.
Any Cisco switches on untagged ports then
exitted the network with a message about
"802.1q BPDU received on non trunk".
Extreme eventually dealt with this.
The other problem is when connecting
untagged ports between Cisco (and other)
switches running CDP (Cisco Discovery
Protocol). If the native vlan at both
ends is not the same, CDP disables the
port, and logs a message. Solution is to ensure connections between untagged ports
always use same native vlan, or always
use 802.1q between switches, or turn cdp
off.
I think if you always use 802.1q between
switches, and never use native vlans, you will be OK.
Bruce Campbell
Director, Network Services
Information Systems and Technology
MC 1018
(519)888-4567 x38323
University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON
Director, Network Services
Information Systems and Technology
MC 1018
(519)888-4567 x38323
University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Hewlett Packard Enterprise. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation.
Company
Events and news
Customer resources
© Copyright 2025 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP