cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
318
Views
2
Helpful
6
Replies

Spanning Tree configuration help

grapevine
Level 5
Level 5

I have a Cisco IE 4010 running MST connected to cisco IE 9320 running PVST connected via a single port. IE 9320 has a priority 24576 and IE 4010 has a priority 32768. Since they are running different mode of STP, that trunk port is getting blocked on Cisco IE 4010. the logs I see on Cisco IE 4010 is
%SPANTREE-2-PVSTSIM_FAIL: Blocking designated port Gi1/13: Inconsistent superior PVST BPDU received on VLAN 23, claiming root 24599:5000.e0e7.8380

6 Replies 6

Mark Elsen
Hall of Fame
Hall of Fame

 

   - @grapevine             All switches in the network must use the same spanning tree algorithm

  M.



-- Let everything happen to you  
       Beauty and terror
      Just keep going    
       No feeling is final
Reiner Maria Rilke (1899)

aleabrahao
Meraki Community All-Star
Meraki Community All-Star

You should have to run the same spanning tree mode on both switches.

I am not a Cisco employee. My suggestions are based on documentation of Meraki best practices and day-to-day experience.

Please, if this post was useful, leave your kudos and mark it as solved.

grapevine
Level 5
Level 5

Would running this command on ie 4010 fix the issue

conf t
spanning-tree mode pvst
end

 

  - @grapevine                           Yes , 

  M.



-- Let everything happen to you  
       Beauty and terror
      Just keep going    
       No feeling is final
Reiner Maria Rilke (1899)

Hello @grapevine ,

I would recommend 

spanning-tree mode rapid-pvst

PVST uses non Rapid STP instances. Rapid PVST uses Rapid STP instances. 

on all switches

Hope to help

Giuseppe

 

Hello
Looks like you are showing a pvst simulation issue that’s blocking those ports

Most preferred approach if you wish to continue to run with the two stp regions(MSTP/PVST+) is firstly make sure your mst instances have all the vlans that exist in the pvst+ region.

Then all your mst instances (especially instance 0) stp priorities must become the most preferred (set to a lower value) than ALL of your PVST+ vlans.
This will make MST root switch become the CIST root switch for the entire STP estate.

However if you wish to have the PVST+ region to be the CIST root for the whole stp estate, then the PVST+ vlan priorities need to be change to accommodate PVST+ simulation rules, meaning ALL vlans require to have a lower stp priority of all the MST instances (including mst 0) AND most importantly
PVST+ vlan 1 has to be of a less preferred value then all the other PVST+ vlans in that region.

Example PVST+ CIST root:
PVST+  vlan1 = 4096 ,  vlan2 + = 0
MST x =  8192



Please rate and mark as an accepted solution if you have found any of the information provided useful.
This then could assist others on these forums to find a valuable answer and broadens the community’s global network.

Kind Regards
Paul