On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 02:11:32AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
Sounds like you forgot to configure the "Root is that-way ->" sanity check on your switches. Make sure that Root bridge can't be determined to be in a direction other than "upstream" will help a lot with this.
No STP in the core, only on the managed edges.
So basically, the problem is the core switches implement a proprietary loop-prevention protocol that sends "beacon" frames out every 500ms, and if a certain number of these special frames come back (exceeds threshold) it shuts down the port. Even with a 10:1 ratio of
That's Icky... Can you replace that with traditional spanning tree? It's just too sensitive for a deployment of any real size.
STP is eliminated by vendor's design recommendations. Active/active split LAG across two core boxes. But yes, I agree that this design is proving--lacking.
The good news is that this core is being replaced soon, hopefully with gear that will be able to implement a service-provider-like design with per-port VLAN separation as was suggested in this thread. But it surprises me that low-end switch vendors (like NetGear) still put out crap that doesn't do STP, especially when the switch does Auto MDI/MDI-X, which is just asking for trouble.
Usually people don't use Netgear cheap switches in environments with more than a desktop worth of topology.
We don't generally put them in, users do. There are a few cases where we have a dearth of cable or conduit space and needed something small and quiet to put there. Hence my question about better switches to use in those scenarios.
Anyone know if Auto MDI/MDI-X is inherent or required in 1000Base-T? It would be nice if I could shut it off.
Yes, it is. (This is actually a good thing in everyone else's environment).
It's easy to claim that no one else but me has this problem. Designing a "dekstop" switch that makes it easy to create accidental loops, but then has no loop-prevention mechanism seems irresponsible to me...