I have Cisco SG300-28, SG350-28, and Catalyst 2960 switches. SG350-28 and Catalyst 2960 are connected to SG300-28 via a trunk. The Bridge Priority of Cisco SG300-28 is set as 4096. However, the Catalyst 2960 switch sees it as root bridge only for VLAN 1 for all other VLANs the Catalyst 2960 sees itself as the root. Cisco SMB series switches make you enter STP/RSTP Bridge Priority in the multiple of 4096 but apparently does not support Per-VLAN STP/RSTP. What is Cisco trying to do? Is there any new firmware which supports Per-VLAN STP/RSTP or am I missing something?
... View more
I have been reading a few articles about SDN and how it will affect the job of a network administrator/engineer. Some say it will not affect the network people while some argue the jobs for network people will plunge, this has put me in a dilemma.
I read this article Cisco's made DNA Center open enough to out-run Amazon • The Register It says "Cisco’s DevNet has grown to half a million members, meaning that many network people have at least started to turn themselves into developers "
It made me think why are network people are turning into developers, is it because of SDN, it is because the demand of network people will decline?
There's also another discussion WILL SDN REDUCE CCIE JOBs in future with some suggesting to move to security, collaboration, data center etc. from R&S track
I don't really know about SDN. I am just learning CCNA R&S and I like R&S track.
How will SDN affect the job of a network administrator/engineer?
What skills do I need to gain to adapt to this SDN change?
I need expert advice.
... View more
This question might be redundant of https://supportforums.cisco.com/t5/lan-switching-and-routing/ipv6-link-local-address-issue/td-p/2692397 But I have not got a definitive answer.
RFC4291 section 2.4 states FE80::/10 as Link-Local address space which would mean addresses from FE80:: through FEBF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF
But, section 2.5.6 restricts Link-Local address as FE80::/64 which would mean addresses from FE80:: through FE80::FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF
However, Cisco IOS allows manual Link-Local address configuration from the whole address space FE80::/10
Cisco Support Community: https://supportforums.cisco.com/…/ipv6-link-lo…/td-p/2692397
RFC Errata: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php…
After reading above two threads seems like Cisco is getting Link-Local addressing wrong? How do other vendors handle Link-Local addressing? Or, is there an error in RFC?
... View more
.jpg "Hall of Fame Master"){kind=icon}
