 |
 |
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