Book now with code EOY2025
NightShade03 wrote: » @Forsaken_GA - point taken however isn't the point of PVST to have spannig-tree within a VLAN, so wouldn't it be possible to have a loop only in a single VLAN making just the VLAN network unusable (correct me if I'm wrong which is quite possible).
Xenz wrote: » The packets listing all sorts of random root priorities, I would imagine seeing redundancy (listing the same priority possibly), but they are all over the place.
NightShade03 wrote: » Just curious but if there are multiple VLANs with PVST running on them should one of the ports be in a BLK state / VLAN ? Isn't the point to have one in a block state so as for traffic to just not move around in a circular state?
NightShade03 wrote: » I understand your analogy it just seems weird to me the way that the configuration is setup. If I run "show spanning-tree summary" I see that all ports are in a FWD state, which shouldn't be the case because there is the Root port, DP, and then a BLK port (so as not to create a forwarding loop). We do have a pyramid structure (as you would have to for PVST to work) however something just doesn't look right. Trying to get a better packet capture for the same switch.
Xenz wrote: » You're saying the output from show spanning-tree summary shows under forwarding that there are X ports in forwarding with 0 in blocking/listening/learning?
kryolla wrote: » that topology seem like it is just pieced together with no thought.
kryolla wrote: » There is no point in running STP for that as sw2-7 is daisy chained or in series and the rest just in parallel with sw1. Are there end users on all switches.
Use code EOY2025 to receive $250 off your 2025 certification boot camp!