- Community Home
- >
- Networking
- >
- Legacy
- >
- Switches, Hubs, Modems
- >
- 2810 STP Problem
Switches, Hubs, and Modems
1752866
Members
3562
Online
108791
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
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
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
09-27-2010 07:12 AM
09-27-2010 07:12 AM
2810 STP Problem
Hi All,
Wonder if you can help.
As I understand the procurve switches, when calculating Spanning Tree do not take into account VLANS. The Procurves are blocking several ports as there is a physical loop (although there is no logical loop due to the vlan configuration).
I ahve read I should implement multiple instances and assign the relevent vlans, enabling each of them to choose the correct path based on their priority etc.
I cant however get this to work! one of the ports is labeled as the "master" when looking at the spanning tree instance configuration. If I look at the IST configuration its the same port that leads to the STP Root.
I have attached a very bad and simplified diagram of the setup of just one of the VLANS. The 2810 sees the physical loop and ST blocks the port going to the layer 3 switch.
I have created 2 instances, one that contains VLAN 1 and another that contains VLAN2, however changing the priorities of the insatnce containing VLAN2 has no effect.
Edit - To simplyfy matters, we can ignore the 2510 for now, once I know how to get the 2810 working it shouldnt be an issue!
For reference, the Nortwl switch stack is the Spanning Tree root (and needs to remain)
Thanks in advance,
Craig
Wonder if you can help.
As I understand the procurve switches, when calculating Spanning Tree do not take into account VLANS. The Procurves are blocking several ports as there is a physical loop (although there is no logical loop due to the vlan configuration).
I ahve read I should implement multiple instances and assign the relevent vlans, enabling each of them to choose the correct path based on their priority etc.
I cant however get this to work! one of the ports is labeled as the "master" when looking at the spanning tree instance configuration. If I look at the IST configuration its the same port that leads to the STP Root.
I have attached a very bad and simplified diagram of the setup of just one of the VLANS. The 2810 sees the physical loop and ST blocks the port going to the layer 3 switch.
I have created 2 instances, one that contains VLAN 1 and another that contains VLAN2, however changing the priorities of the insatnce containing VLAN2 has no effect.
Edit - To simplyfy matters, we can ignore the 2510 for now, once I know how to get the 2810 working it shouldnt be an issue!
For reference, the Nortwl switch stack is the Spanning Tree root (and needs to remain)
Thanks in advance,
Craig
1 REPLY 1
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
09-29-2010 10:36 AM
09-29-2010 10:36 AM
Re: 2810 STP Problem
Here's a good tutorial on MSTP: http://blog.ine.com/2008/07/27/mstp-tutorial-part-i-inside-a-region/
When you have a triangular arrangement, and have a link filtered in a VLAN, you need to make the root switch for the instance the one opposite that link. All its (non-redundant) links will be active.
So, in your example (mapping VLAN 1 to instance 1, and VLAN 2 to instance 2) you would need the Nortel to be the root switch for instance 1 and the Dell to be the root switch for instance 2. You can do that by lowering their priorities for that instance.
Now, you only have the instance trees within a single MSTP region. To set up a region you configure the switches with the same: configuration name+configuration version+VLAN to instance mapping. So you would need to do this on the Nortel, Dell and HP boxes and hope their MSTP implementations interoperate properly.
Even with your simplified diagram, this is sounding a bit nightmareish. So, I might consider foregoing spanning tree on a few links (say the uplinks to the Layer 3 router), set them bpdu-filter to lock them in forwarding mode and leave it at that.
When you have a triangular arrangement, and have a link filtered in a VLAN, you need to make the root switch for the instance the one opposite that link. All its (non-redundant) links will be active.
So, in your example (mapping VLAN 1 to instance 1, and VLAN 2 to instance 2) you would need the Nortel to be the root switch for instance 1 and the Dell to be the root switch for instance 2. You can do that by lowering their priorities for that instance.
Now, you only have the instance trees within a single MSTP region. To set up a region you configure the switches with the same: configuration name+configuration version+VLAN to instance mapping. So you would need to do this on the Nortel, Dell and HP boxes and hope their MSTP implementations interoperate properly.
Even with your simplified diagram, this is sounding a bit nightmareish. So, I might consider foregoing spanning tree on a few links (say the uplinks to the Layer 3 router), set them bpdu-filter to lock them in forwarding mode and leave it at that.
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.
News and Events
Support
© Copyright 2024 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP