similar to: [Bridge] [bridge]: STP: no port in blocking state despite a loop when in a network namespace

When we create an L2 loop on a bridge in netns, we will see packets storm even if STP is enabled. # unshare -n # ip link add br0 type bridge # ip link add veth0 type veth peer name veth1 # ip link set veth0 master br0 up # ip link set veth1 master br0 up # ip link set br0 type bridge stp_state 1 # ip link set br0 up # sleep 30 # ip -s link show br0 2: br0:

(CC'ing bridge maintainers.) Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu at amazon.com> writes: > From: Harry Coin <hcoin at quietfountain.com> > Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 16:40:03 -0500 >> On 7/11/23 15:44, Andrew Lunn wrote: >> >>>>>> The current llc_rcv.c around line 166 in net/llc/llc_input.c has >> >>>>>> >>

if I just connect two similar port say both 10 gb of one switch to another = symmetric bridge with stp enabled on both bridge , stpstate of all four po= rts always remain forwarding. ( may be because all four of them are either root or desginated port in abo= ve setup) should I except that one port atleast will get into blocking state , if i c= onnect two non-similar ports together say a 10gb

On 12/07/2023 02:54, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote: > When we create an L2 loop on a bridge in netns, we will see packets storm > even if STP is enabled. > > # unshare -n > # ip link add br0 type bridge > # ip link add veth0 type veth peer name veth1 > # ip link set veth0 master br0 up > # ip link set veth1 master br0 up > # ip link set br0 type bridge stp_state 1

Recently ran into a problem with the 2.6.18 kernel on Xscale arch when a br= idge, with multiple interfaces on it, is configured with a redundant loop. = All interfaces are left on forwarding and nexer switch to block when the lo= op is introduced. This was tested against a 2.6.16 kernel and the problem d= id not occur, interfaces forwared and blocked correctly. Any help would be = appreciated.

It appears that interfaces participate in STP's forwarding delay even when STP is disabled for a given bridge. I can remedy by setting the FD to 0 for each new bridge, but I'm wondering if this is by design or oversight. [root@ ~]# brctl show bridge name bridge id STP enabled interfaces br0.690 8000.00065b8bce3e no eth1.690

I have noticed a change in the linux bridge implementation between 2.1.15 and 2.1.17. Specifically, I do not think BPDU's (generated from another bridge) are passed across the bridge when STP is disabled. I think this relates to the LLC handling of BPDU's directly invoking br_bpdu_rcv. In 2.6.15, the br_handle_frame function would pass a BPDU to the br_handle_frame_finish function

Hi, All: I am tring to use STP function on bridge device that refer the BRIDGE-STP-HOWTO. And I use PING program to test it from PC1 to PC2. But the forward function is become too long when bridge topology change. How can I tuning the STP to make client connect to another again faster? I have been use follow command. But it seen not this issue. Bcause, if I run " arp -d " on

Hello! "brctl stp br0" would crash brctl provided that br0 is a bridge. This is caused by incorrect number of arguments in the commands table. "stp" needs at least 2 arguments after "stp". The patch against version 1.0.4 is attached. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin -------------- next part -------------- --- brctl/brctl_cmd.c +++ brctl/brctl_cmd.c @@ -394,7 +394,7 @@

Hi, ppl, I am using kernel 2.4.25 and having this peculiar problem on my ixp425. When i have 2 ethernet ports of the board connected to the same linksys switch running STP. ixp0 and ixp1 are the name of my ethernet ports enslaved to the same bridge( br0)and my PC is also connected to the switch. IXP425 -br0 (192.168.2.1) |_ixp0|--- |

This is a revised version of Kishore's patch to set message age appropriately in STP configuration packets. Signed-off-by: Kishore A K <KishoreAK@myw.ltindia.com> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org> diff -Nru a/net/bridge/br_stp.c b/net/bridge/br_stp.c --- a/net/bridge/br_stp.c 2004-06-29 14:45:50 -07:00 +++ b/net/bridge/br_stp.c 2004-06-29 14:45:50 -07:00 @@

Hi all, We are facing a problem with STP implementation. We have only 2 switches. Thats the constraint, but we feel STP should work. Background: We have developed a layer 2 switch. This uses Cirrus logic's ep9301 processor, embedded Linux 2.4.21 kernel as the OS and zarlink's switch controller. The observation: 1)we have 2 switches, switch A and switch B 2)port 1 and port 2 of switch

We seem to send 3 extra bytes in a TCN, which will be whatever happens to be on the stack. Thanks to Aji_Srinivas@emc.com for seeing. Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org> diff -Naur a/net/bridge/br_stp_bpdu.c b/net/bridge/br_stp_bpdu.c --- a/net/bridge/br_stp_bpdu.c 2006-09-03 23:40:08.000000000 +0530 +++ b/net/bridge/br_stp_bpdu.c 2006-09-03 23:40:33.000000000 +0530 @@

This is the 2.4 version which incorporates the observations from Kishore about 2.6. The existing 2.4 code set the age properly, but did not increment correctly for HZ=1000 and could send a stale (expired) configuration. Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org> diff -Nru a/net/bridge/br_stp.c b/net/bridge/br_stp.c --- a/net/bridge/br_stp.c 2004-06-29 15:30:32 -07:00 +++

I have been playing around with the STP settings of brctl and saw something strange. I was setting the hello time, so I executed the following: # brctl sethello br0 30 Then I had a look at the value that was set: # cat /sys/class/net/br0/bridge/hello_time 2999 Much bigger than expected. I started looking at the source. In the libbridge/libbridge_devif.c file of brctl, we have the following

Hi, I want to connect two pc`s on a redundant way with each other. On those pc`s a 64 bit ubuntu 11.10 is running with kernel version 3.0.0-16-generic. Setup1: ---------- PC1: PC2: br0 br1 | | -- eth0.1000 ---------------------------------------------------eth0.1000 | | __eth1.1001

I have two multi-port bridges connected together with a lot of cables. Current setup is as follows: --------eth0------- | | [Bridge A] <-eth1-> [Bridge B] | | --------eth5------- Bridge A is root-bridge, and eth0 is set to lowest path-cost. Consequently on Bridge B interfaces eth1 and eth5 are in blocking state. However, when looking

Hi all, I work on a SOC based on Micrel/Kendin KS8695 based on ARM9. ( http://micrel.com/page.do?page=product-info/sys_on_chip.jsp) This component has 2 network interfaces. One is connected to a 5 ports switch. eth0 eth1 => switch port1,2,3,4 I want to make a bridge with these 5 ports but my problem is that the network driver only install 2 interfaces. The KS8695 network switch can be

On 12/07/2023 17:48, Ido Schimmel wrote: > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 04:54:15PM -0700, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote: >> When we create an L2 loop on a bridge in netns, we will see packets storm >> even if STP is enabled. >> >> # unshare -n >> # ip link add br0 type bridge >> # ip link add veth0 type veth peer name veth1 >> # ip link set veth0 master

Bridge locking for /sys/class/net/br0/bridge/stp_enabled was wrong. Another bug in bridge utilities makes it such that this interface, meant it wasn't being used. The locking needs to be removed from set_stp_state(), the lock is already acquired down in br_stp_start()/br_stp_stop. Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org> --- a/net/bridge/br_sysfs_br.c