Task 2.1

Hi,

the last bullet from 2.1 sounds like

 

 • All layer 2 traffic from SW1 to SW2 should be first sent to SW3, then sent to SW4, and finally on to SW2.

Since SG had nothing to do with SW2<->SW3 interconnections, I made SW4 root for all vlans.

 

 

Comments

  • In this Lab there are total 3 questions in Bridging & Switching section. In this task 2.1 they only mentioned to form an etherchannel between SW1 and SW2 but nowhere else its mentioned to form trunk or etherchannel between other Switches (2.1 to 2.3). So, one needs to focus more closely to see what exactly they are looking for.

    As per the wordings, initially it sounded to me also that they are looking for something related to STP but later realized it should be more towards trunking as the switch highways ;) are not ready yet between SW2, SW3 and SW4.

     

  • I did this in another way. I increased the cost on links 16-18 on SW2 and 13-15 on SW4. This should ensure that the path from SW1 - SW3 - SW4 - SW2 is used. Does anyone see any issues with this?

  • Okay so makes sense to create trunk links to create the path.  Cool.

    This logic however I think is flawed because DTP has already negotiated ISL trunks with several other links.  Are we to leave them enabled? I would expect spanning-tree manipulation in the SG if we are to leave all these links up.  If we shut them down then this becomes the only path, which eliminates the need for SPT manipulation.

     

    Cheers

    Matt Caza

  • as there is nio requirement for dot1Q trunking for the specified links.....and ISL trunks was initialy formed on the initial loaded configs I would definetly agree that STP manipulation and changing sw4 as the root will achieve sending all L2 traffic towards SW4 first and then if a required to go to SW2 forwarded via designated port directly to SW2.....

     

    SG question and solution doesn't make sense! 

  • Hi,

     

    For me, I disabled the links between SW2 <> SW3 and all other  links but 1st links between SW1 <> SW3, SW3 <> SW4, and SW4 <> SW2.

     

    KR,

     

    Aliou

     

     

  • For me, I disabled the links between SW2 <> SW3 and all other  links but 1st links between SW1 <> SW3, SW3 <> SW4, and SW4 <> SW2.

     

    My solution to this was very similar to the above.  There are no requirements specifying what links should remain trunking as per the initial configuration so I did the following -

    SW1
    conf t
    int range f0/19 - 21
    sh

    SW2
    int range f0/16 - 18
    sh

    SW3
    int range f0/16 - 18
    sh

    SW4
    int range f0/13 - 15
    sh


    This configuration doesn't break anything else further on in the lab!




    The SG solution for this problem is not so great as all there are trunk links between SW3 and SW2 and also from SW1 and SW4 from the default configuration of these links!

     

  • My solution to this was very similar to the above.  There are no requirements specifying what links should remain trunking as per the initial configuration so I did the following -

    SW1
    conf t
    int range f0/19 - 21
    sh

    SW2
    int range f0/16 - 18
    sh

    SW3
    int range f0/16 - 18
    sh

    SW4
    int range f0/13 - 15
    sh


    This configuration doesn't break anything else further on in the lab!



    The SG solution for this problem is not so great as all there are trunk links between SW3 and SW2 and also from SW1 and SW4 from the default configuration of these links!

    By doing this way you are altering the intial configuration. I am not sure whether its correct or not.

    This task does not dictate any thing on trunk remaining trunks so i relied on the initial configuration and raises the cost between sw1 and sw4 with SW4 is the root bridge which is meeting the requirement of the task. For this task i does not raise the link ost between sw3 and sw2 because since sw4 is the root then sw3 will always chose direct link between sw3 and sw4.

     

  • By doing this way you are altering the intial configuration. I am not sure whether its correct or not.

    In this case there are no constraints - so we are at liberty to choose whatever solution we want!

    I felt that shutting down links would be the quickest and easiest way to deliver the required solution.

  • For this i set SW2 as the root, didn't make any modifications to the trunks since the trunks naturally were built between the switches.

    Set the STP cost to 1 on S1-16-19 and S3 13-15,19-21

    S4 16-21 Cost 1

    S2 19-21 Cost 1

    That assured me layer 2 transit path back an for between switch 1 and switch2 through 3 and 4

    :)

     

  • I made SW2 root bridge and adjusted costa higher on unwanted path links.

     

  • Sweet there' weren't many restrictions on what we could or couldn't do, so it's nice to see so many different variations applied.

  • Its more simple all L2 traffic from SW1 to SW2  NOT from SW2 to SW1
    Just disable on sw1 fa0/19 to 21 and on sw2 fa0/16 to 18

    so the only path from SW1 to SW2 is going to 3 and then to 4.

     

    Kind regards

  • Question 2.3 doesn't allow you to shutdown the trunks between sw2 and sw3

  • Question 2.3 doesn't allow you to shutdown the trunks between sw2 and sw3

    Good spot! Clearly I didn't read this requirement when going through this lab!  The solution I proposed in an earlier post in this thread is not valid!

Sign In or Register to comment.