Changing from VTP Client to Server

[North323]

if i change vtp mode from client to server, will i cause an outage or hiccup in the network?

 

[burtsbees]

If the incorrect info and revision numbers are not set correctly, it will cause more than a hiccup!

Burt

 

[ADB100]

Just changing the mode won't upset anything. Introducing a new client or server with a higher VTP revision number upsets things....

I'd question anyones use of VTP these days however..... Transparent or even better Layer-3 links and no VTP at all...

Andy

 

[DallasBPF]

Why not use VTP anymore?

------------------------------------
Dallas, Texas
Telecommunications Tech
CCVP, CCNA, Net+

CCNP in the works

 

[vipergg]

The current thought is to use routed links. VTP will work fine though , it is really a matter of what design you want . We have been running a large vtp setup for years with very few problems.

 

[Linkers]

It’s always recommended to use VTP in transparent mode in all your switches if you are managing few switches (10 or 15). This way you can create & modify VLANs locally on each switch.

I don’t think so your users will even notice a network glitch…

Linkers…

 

[burtsbees]

If the client has been updated and therefore has the highest revision number, and you then make it a server, it will rewrite all the vlan info to all the client switches. This should be okay as long as what it received while it was a client is correct. Now...

A)is this a good choice to be the root bridge?
and
B)do you plan on making the current VTP server a client?

Burt

 

[Belushi]

Come on guys, what is the one thing you need in order to propagate VTP messages in the first place...an active trunk to another switch also participating in the same VTP domain.

I can easily have 1 server connected to another server and change vlans, revision numbers, whatever all day long and not impact a thing so long as my two switches are not connected via trunks but access links or as one user already mentioned routed links.

Nopt sure I agree with some of the other statements made here. I would NOT necessarily make all my switch uplinks routed ports. That doesn't work to well when you are dealing with extremely large environments (datacetners and the like). Not that there isn't an application for routed uplinks, but you can't make blanket statements like that.

I do however tend to agree with not using VTP all right now. There are so many options and considerations with VTP (spanning tree, security, etc.) that you must do what is right for your particular situation. I could not use VTP in most of environments due to the fact that we require vlans above 1005.

 

[burtsbees]

Come on guys, what is the one thing you need in order to propagate VTP messages in the first place...an active trunk to another switch also participating in the same VTP domain. "

How do you think they are now???

Burt

 

[Belushi]

I don't know does this initial comment by him say anything:

"if i change vtp mode from client to server, will i cause an outage or hiccup in the network?"

Too me that comment says nothing. The only way to trully answer it is with 1 word..."depends".

I was merely trying to get a point across that all of these posts mentioned doing this and that. All of which are valid ideas to some extent, but none of them mean anything unless he has trunked interfaces between the switches he is talking about. Who really knows?

 

[burtsbees]

Well, my point is that perhaps if there are clients, and a server, can we assume that here exist trunk ports between the clients and servers?

Burt

 

[ADB100]

Nopt sure I agree with some of the other statements made here. I would NOT necessarily make all my switch uplinks routed ports. That doesn't work to well when you are dealing with extremely large environments (datacetners and the like). Not that there isn't an application for routed uplinks, but you can't make blanket statements like that.

I agree, it all depends on what you are trying to achieve - THE DESIGN. In data centre environments you typically want VLANs spanning between switches to cater for clustering and virtualisation such as VMWare or MS Virtual Server. I would strictly control this though and frown at the server guys when they say 'we need any VLAN anywhere'.
However in typical user environments there is no need for Layer-2 adjacency between clients, coupled with that the instability of large STP domains I would go with a routed access layer every time. It is also much easier to troubleshoot as you know where each IP subnet is localised to.

Andy