On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 19:15:47 +0000 P@draigBrady.com wrote:> Hi, > > I'm using linux 2.4.20 here and noticed that even > when STP is disabled for a bridge, the forwarding delay > still takes affect. Is this correct? I.E. Does the > bridge need to spend time in the "listening" and > "learning" states when STP isn't used? > > It's an easy work around to set the delay to 0, > I'm just wondering whether it's a buglet or > by design.I think it was a design decision to avoid forwarding data until some state was acquired. It is annoying if you don't expect it.
Hi, I'm using linux 2.4.20 here and noticed that even when STP is disabled for a bridge, the forwarding delay still takes affect. Is this correct? I.E. Does the bridge need to spend time in the "listening" and "learning" states when STP isn't used? It's an easy work around to set the delay to 0, I'm just wondering whether it's a buglet or by design. thanks, P?draig.
Possibly Parallel Threads
- [Bridge] stp port state always remains forwarding ...
- [Bridge] Bridging between user processes
- [Bridge] BPDU's not passing through bridge when STP is disabled
- [Bridge] bridge+filter+failover+rules&state sync+traffic shaping
- [Bridge] [PATCH] Fix typo in net/bridge/br_stp_if.c