Hi, I have a patch here to MFC the rstp code to RELENG_6. It should be all fine and dandy as for API but will cause the default spanning tree version to change from stp to rstp. Is it ok to change the protocol version for the STABLE users (rstp is backwards compatable with stp) or should it still default to stp and require the OP to enable rstp. Any opinions? Andrew http://people.freebsd.org/~thompsa/mfc_rstp.diff
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, Andrew Thompson wrote: Hi,> I have a patch here to MFC the rstp code to RELENG_6. It should be all > fine and dandy as for API but will cause the default spanning tree > version to change from stp to rstp. > > Is it ok to change the protocol version for the STABLE users (rstp is > backwards compatable with stp) or should it still default to stp and > require the OP to enable rstp. > > Any opinions?I think you should leave stp as default and have the user configure rstp if (s)he thinks (s)he needs it. -- Bjoern A. Zeeb bzeeb at Zabbadoz dot NeT
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 08:24:14AM +0000, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:> On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, Andrew Thompson wrote: > > Hi, > > >I have a patch here to MFC the rstp code to RELENG_6. It should be all > >fine and dandy as for API but will cause the default spanning tree > >version to change from stp to rstp. > > > >Is it ok to change the protocol version for the STABLE users (rstp is > >backwards compatable with stp) or should it still default to stp and > >require the OP to enable rstp. > > > >Any opinions? > > I think you should leave stp as default and have the user configure rstp > if (s)he thinks (s)he needs it.Yes, I think thats the safest. It will just need a bit more info in the man page so people know it exists. Andrew