MSTP or Rapid-pvst?

geforce1010

1- which one do you prefer to use in your network? MSTP or Rapid-pvst or Rapid-pvst+?

2- if I run MSTP, do I need to run STP as well?

kohr-ah

I've always ran rapid-pvst+ if avail otherwise rapid-pvst even on my wireless equipment (Aruba).

NOC-Ninja

geforce1010 wrote: »

1- which one do you prefer to use in your network? MSTP or Rapid-pvst or Rapid-pvst+?

2- if I run MSTP, do I need to run STP as well?

1. Rapid-pvst+
2. read this Understanding Multiple Spanning Tree Protocol (802.1s) - Cisco

james43026

NOC-Ninja wrote: »

1. Rapid-pvst+
2. read this Understanding Multiple Spanning Tree Protocol (802.1s) - Cisco

I would like to second this. MST can be great if you really want some granular load balancing in your layer 2 topology. And can save resources on your layer 2 devices, no point in having 300 STP instances in any version of PVST, when there is only 50 different physical paths that can be taken, why not just condense them at that point? Because most network admins don't want to deal with the overhead of such a project. Probably because of the time it would consume to do so. But the network would benefit. It really depends on the needs of your network. If resources on your switches isn't a concern, then a version of PVST should be fine.

Danielh22185

james43026 wrote: »

I would like to second this. MST can be great if you really want some granular load balancing in your layer 2 topology. And can save resources on your layer 2 devices, no point in having 300 STP instances in any version of PVST, when there is only 50 different physical paths that can be taken, why not just condense them at that point? Because most network admins don't want to deal with the overhead of such a project. Probably because of the time it would consume to do so. But the network would benefit. It really depends on the needs of your network. If resources on your switches isn't a concern, then a version of PVST should be fine.

Good informational insight there but I think what NOC Ninja was getting at was that it's pretty apparent the OP doesn't fully understand the concepts of STP and MST and how they inter-operate.

On a side note MST never really came to fruition because nobody has 300 stinking VLANS / separate instances of STP. Now with layer 3 having presence in the access layer commonly on modern networks STP is mere pointless outside the local switch.

When I think of MST I think: too little too late.

kohr-ah

Danielh22185 wrote: »

When I think of MST I think: too little too late.

Reminds me of the packet pushers podcast I was listening to on my train ride in the other day and the guy who helped make the internet (Not Al Gore) stated that Multicast was the worth thing ever invented and noone but investment/stock companies use it.

networker050184

I always use MSTP, but I usually work in larger environments where STP instance numbers can cause issues on some platforms. Besides unless you are trying to do something on a per-VLAN basis why have one per instance running?

Simrid

I agree with @networker050184 - It really depends on your environment. PVST+ is great for smaller scale networks, however if you are working within an enterprise you may find yourself hitting some caps.

For example, you could run a MSTP instance on a per customer basis. You could run it on a per data type basis (all HR VLAN's in one MSTP instance, finance in another etc). I think it's a lot more flexible on a larger scale although will require some tweaking.

Please feel free to correct me if you think i'm talking rubbish