Help needed on spanning tree question

beginner_ccna

need your guys help regards to the below please:

Customer X has the layer 2 network below. They have 10 production VLANs (2 - 11) configured on all 4 switches so spanning tree is needed to prevent loops. They have asked for the following:-

1. Switch 1 must be the primary root device

2. Switch 2 must be the secondary root device.

3. They do not want an active/standby solution, they want to load share on the uplinks to the Layer 2 Network Cloud.

1.Which version of spanning tree should be implemented and what will the spanning tree configuration look like on each switch?

i know about the different types of spanning tree, can somebody point us in the right direction please?

will rapid spanning tree be the best choice?

your help is much appreciated

higherho

Understanding Rapid Spanning Tree Protocol (802.1w)  [Spanning Tree Protocol] - Cisco Systems

this should help you under stand RSTP a bit more.

martell1000

you will need to implement pvst or rpvst to get the load balancing done

i would try to get 5 vlans using sw1 as a root and 5 vlans using sw2 as a root

beginner_ccna

anyone else kindly able to help me out with this task please

networker050184

Tell us what your ideas are and we can give some input.

beginner_ccna

switch one:
set rapid spanning tree, spanning-tree mode rapid-pvst
in configuration mode, spanning-tree vlan 1 root primary

switch two:
set rapid spanning tree, spanning-tree mode rapid-pvst
in configuration mode, spanning-tree vlan 1 root secondary

switch three:
set rapid spanning tree, spanning-tree mode rapid-pvst


switch four:
set rapid spanning tree, spanning-tree mode rapid-pvst

i dont think i need to set any cost?

im not sure on question 3? rapid spanning tree will be used so this should solve the problem shouldnt it?

appreciated your guys help

Forsaken_GA

martell1000 wrote: »

you will need to implement pvst or rpvst to get the load balancing done

i would try to get 5 vlans using sw1 as a root and 5 vlans using sw2 as a root

assuming those requirements are strict, that would break the requirement of sw1 being the primary root and sw2 being the secondary.

Heero

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

assuming those requirements are strict, that would break the requirement of sw1 being the primary root and sw2 being the secondary.

We would need more information about what is in the cloud. Assuming it is just more switches, you can increase the cost for 5 of the vlan STP instances on the link towards sw1, so that going through sw2 to sw1 is considered a better route. In reality, you would want to change sw2 to primary for those vlan STP instances.

I think the question is a bit vague personally.

Forsaken_GA

Heero wrote: »

We would need more information about what is in the cloud. Assuming it is just more switches, you can increase the cost for 5 of the vlan STP instances on the link towards sw1, so that going through sw2 to sw1 is considered a better route. In reality, you would want to change sw2 to primary for those vlan STP instances.

I think the question is a bit vague personally.

The cloud is irrelevant, the nature of the question demonstrates that. They do not want an active/standby solution with the uplinks, so you need to configure it.

Read into it - if the possibility for an active/standby solution using the uplinks exists, then so does the possibility for a layer 2 loop. Which means SW1 and SW2 can communicate with each other at layer 2 over the layer 2 cloud links. Which means you can influence Switch2 to use the layer2 uplink as it's root port, and thereby meet the needs of the question. Basically, you want the direct link between SW1 and SW2 to be the standby link instead of the link into the cloud.

In that case, all you'd need to do is influence SW2 so that it sees the uplink going to the cloud as it's Root port for half the vlans, which means cost or port priority

The question's not vague, but it does make some assumptions about your knowledge of spanning tree.. which isn't unreasonable, if that's what it's testing you on.