On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 14:37 -0500, Jay Hanke wrote:
> > CNS has received a request from one of its customers for a direct connection
> > to MICE.
>
> This has come up before. I've been recommending that the carriers sell
> it as Ethernet transport and then pop into a "fresh" MICE access port
> so each carrier ends up with their own port.

What is/was the original intention of the remote switches in the first
place if not for extending the reach of the MICE network? Getting people
onto the main/core switch is most preferably for flat simplicity... KISS
IMO

>
> I don't see any problem placing a remote switch outside the Twin
> Cities. I would disable spanning tree. If we haven't already, we
> should disable spanning tree in the core switches or place a guard so
> the port goes down if a BPDU comes in.


+1 for properly managed STP unless/until it crosses administrative
boundaries. Managing a shared STP domain between unrelated entities is
messy. It only takes one port with an stp bpdu filter to generate a bad
day that even a bpdu guard can't protect against.

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link:
http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1