mbjelo

Can you add me

If interfaces are not passive we have direct neighborship between sw101 and 102 and we do not have traffic going through routers which is suboptimal. I did not know that requirement is not to change cost on sw202. In that case configuring no passive vlan interfaces lead to not fulfillment requirement that all traffic from DC goes through sw201 sw101 link so we must make vlan interfaces passive and traffic going through routers.

I think vlan interfaces should not be passive, you could make it active and enable adjacency between sw102 and 102 through it. In that case trace route from hosts would be ok but int that case you have two routes to 10.1.0.0 on sw 202, with same metric, one through sw201 and second through sw102 which is in collision with requirements. But, it could be solved by adding cost 100 on gi1/2 link on sw202.

Hello all, Configuration with VL make all traffic goes through sw101-sw201 link but we have different traceroute from h11and h12 again(picture below). I think it is because of virtual link goes through routers r11 and r12.

can you add me to the group. , please

thanks!!!

interested

add me please.