<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: WLC Per VLAN STP in Wireless</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/wlc-per-vlan-stp/m-p/781324#M49782</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;hello Eric ,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;thank you for your feedback according stp in 440x switches. Indeed the feature is not critical but i checked it again by mirroring the ports and it is not 'talking' with per vlan STP of  3560 or 3750. From the integration point of view you're right and  we'll usually have LAG in place. Thanks for your input. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Michal&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 30 Jun 2007 09:40:50 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>mstyszynski</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2007-06-30T09:40:50Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>WLC Per VLAN STP</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/wlc-per-vlan-stp/m-p/781322#M49780</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;hello ,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;i was looking quickly into spanning tree integration of the 440x with a wired switches but did not set a test yet. Maybe you already know if it's a vlan stp or port based spanning tree what they coded. Have you got any experience in the operation of the STP? Thanks in advance for your  feedback. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Best , &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Michal &lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 03 Jul 2021 21:11:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/wlc-per-vlan-stp/m-p/781322#M49780</guid>
      <dc:creator>mstyszynski</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-07-03T21:11:35Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: WLC Per VLAN STP</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/wlc-per-vlan-stp/m-p/781323#M49781</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Your best bet is to leave the STP settings on the WLC as the defaults.  You will config the switch ports that connect to the WLC as 802.1q trunks.  The 4402 &amp;amp; 4404 both support LAG which will allow you to use etherchannel between the switch and the WLC.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Do you have a need for the WLC to participate in STP?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2007 13:10:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/wlc-per-vlan-stp/m-p/781323#M49781</guid>
      <dc:creator>ericgarnel</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2007-06-12T13:10:56Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: WLC Per VLAN STP</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/wlc-per-vlan-stp/m-p/781324#M49782</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;hello Eric ,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;thank you for your feedback according stp in 440x switches. Indeed the feature is not critical but i checked it again by mirroring the ports and it is not 'talking' with per vlan STP of  3560 or 3750. From the integration point of view you're right and  we'll usually have LAG in place. Thanks for your input. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Michal&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 30 Jun 2007 09:40:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/wlc-per-vlan-stp/m-p/781324#M49782</guid>
      <dc:creator>mstyszynski</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2007-06-30T09:40:50Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

