asked on

Spanning tree vlan priority - Cisco 3550

Hello EE. I have a question about Sopanning-tree vlan priority. We have 2 x Cisco 3550 core switches.for redunancy. Vlans has always been a bit of a grey area for me. I was looking at the switch configurations and noticed there was a slight difference between them:

Core 1
spanning-tree mode pvst
spanning-tree extend system-id
spanning-tree vlan 1-3,5,8,11,14,20-21,24,100 priority 12288
spanning-tree vlan 4,31,101-102 priority 24576
!
vlan internal allocation policy ascending

--------------------------------------------------------------

Core 2
spanning-tree mode pvst
spanning-tree extend system-id
spanning-tree vlan 1-6,8,11,14,20-21,24,100 priority 16384
!
vlan internal allocation policy ascending

Should these be the same? Vlan 101 - 102 is missing altogether from Core 2.

SOLUTION

ragnarok89

membership

This solution is only available to members.

To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.

Start Free Trial

atlas_shuddered

Additionally, vlan 101-102, if added at future would be come up with the default priority of 32768 on Core 2. In order to ensure that your vlans are propogated accurately across switches, you may also want to consider initiating a VTP domain.

InSearchOf

ASKER

Yes, the vlans exist so I would have to add them. Does it matter if all the vlans have the same priority as is the case it the Core 2 configuration?

Does VTP add any extra traffic to a switch?

ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION