Mark- I've actually been dealing with R-PVST quite a bit over the past few
months and I can say you have very little to worry about.
Rapid-PVST has been in the Cisco code for a better part of a year and it
does work well with PVST+ devices. I've actually just finished a project,
somewhat against my better judgment, which left our data centers running
with redundant Dist/ABR L2/L3 6509s, one a Sup1a Hybrid PVST+ and the other
a Sup720 Native R-PVST (together as VTP Servers). I didn't have a good lab
for measuring failover response, but I do believe Rapid and PVST+ together
at the VTP Server level have slowed failover just a bit (something in the
neighborhood of 15 to 30 sec for L2 between switches). I gather this will
improve when we upgrade the second Sup1a to a 720 and we have both running
R-PVST, but it's all still been very very solid (not to mention educational
;-)
**In short- this is not new technology and it's not reckless to mix and
match. Running ED code at the core of your data centers is another story
(which is what I was forced to do with the 720s).
All the best!
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Shyam, Sharma S (Corporate)
Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 7:30 AM
To: cisco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RSTP [7:89561]
Hi All,
I will appreciate if anyone from us can share practical experience of
implementing RSTP (Rapid spanning tree protocol)..
what are the shortcomings of it ?? obviously I know it is better then STP
but still there will be some hidden bugs ..
Also, can we implement it into the STP setup ..with 4006/6500 switches ..by
upgrading Cat OS...???..
Regards
Mark
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=89564&t=89561
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
