1
00:00:00,770 --> 00:00:06,290
So here's a quick comparison of the different versions of spending tree the spending tree to did one

2
00:00:06,290 --> 00:00:12,380
deep protocol doesn't need a lot of resources but is slow to converge.

3
00:00:12,380 --> 00:00:18,050
You only have one spending tree instance for you entirely to network.

4
00:00:18,050 --> 00:00:23,700
This can lead to some optimal traffic flows and a two to one deal.

5
00:00:23,720 --> 00:00:28,100
Generally not used today in Cisco environments.

6
00:00:28,100 --> 00:00:34,820
Just be aware that when you use new versions of spanning tree Cisco switches are backward compatible

7
00:00:35,090 --> 00:00:40,850
and can talk to older switches or non Cisco switches using added to that one.

8
00:00:40,860 --> 00:00:49,080
The previous t is the Cisco enhancement that provides a single instance of spending tripa villain.

9
00:00:49,190 --> 00:00:50,920
It's uska proprietary.

10
00:00:51,020 --> 00:00:56,670
It needs more resources because one spending tree instance is created per villain.

11
00:00:56,720 --> 00:01:05,420
It is still slow to converge but does allow you to split traffic flows because you have one spending

12
00:01:05,420 --> 00:01:08,610
tree instance Pavillion as an example.

13
00:01:08,790 --> 00:01:15,440
Villon one traffic could use one uplink but violent to traffic could use a separate uplink or separate

14
00:01:15,440 --> 00:01:24,260
port in a network so Skeff also enhanced previous t with features such as port fast uplink fast backbone

15
00:01:24,260 --> 00:01:33,710
fast PPD U-God DPD faulter route God and Leupp God will discuss some of those terms in this course.

16
00:01:33,710 --> 00:01:39,620
Otherwise you'll learn more about those when you attend your CC empy courses respites spending tree

17
00:01:39,620 --> 00:01:43,580
protocol or ADA 2 to 1 W is an industry standard protocol.

18
00:01:43,610 --> 00:01:49,730
It doesn't need as many resources as previously plus because it supports a single instance of spanning

19
00:01:49,730 --> 00:01:52,050
tree for your laya to network.

20
00:01:52,280 --> 00:01:57,690
It's big advantage is that it provides very quick or fast convergence.

21
00:01:57,710 --> 00:02:05,270
It also doesn't address sub optimal traffic flow issues because she can't send VLAN 10 traffic for example

22
00:02:05,270 --> 00:02:09,470
Don one link and violent 20 traffic down another link.

23
00:02:09,470 --> 00:02:17,140
That's the advantage of rapid PTSD plus rapid perviously plus incorporates the advantages of rapid spending.

24
00:02:17,350 --> 00:02:24,420
But allows you to create one spanning tree instance povi land so you can do load sharing of traffic.

25
00:02:24,560 --> 00:02:31,740
It provides a very quick convergence but uses a lot of resources especially when you've got many villains.

26
00:02:31,760 --> 00:02:40,730
The advantage of multiple spending tree is that it solves the high resource issue of PVC plus multiple

27
00:02:40,730 --> 00:02:48,920
spending tree allows you to create a instance of spending tree and map of various villans to that instance

28
00:02:49,730 --> 00:02:58,070
as an example once again if you had 200 villans previous t or rapid Peavey's tea would require 200 instances

29
00:02:58,070 --> 00:03:04,190
of spanning tree whereas multiple spending tree could use two instances to do load sharing and reduce

30
00:03:04,310 --> 00:03:07,200
the amount of resources required.

31
00:03:07,400 --> 00:03:14,490
So C-p you add memory requirements for multiple spending tree are lower than those for rapid previously

32
00:03:14,530 --> 00:03:19,930
plus but resources are higher than those for rapid spending tree.

33
00:03:19,940 --> 00:03:27,050
Now you may find reference material stating that PVC Plus is the default spending tree on Siska switches.

34
00:03:27,200 --> 00:03:29,480
That really depends a lot of switches today.

35
00:03:29,490 --> 00:03:33,020
Use a rapid Peavey's T is the default version of spanning tree.