similar to: [Bridge] STP with only 2 switches

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

On 09/16/2015 10:15 AM, Dmitry E. Mikhailov wrote: > On 09/16/2015 03:02 PM, C.L. Martinez wrote: >> What advantages and disadvantages have?? If I will want to install >> some kvm guests that use multicast address for certain services, is it >> recommended to enable STP? > STP has nothing to do with multicast as it's an Ethernet protocol. > It's developed to

Hi all, Reading docs about using bridges in a KVM environment, I have a doubt about activating STP or not in a KVM host. What advantages and disadvantages have?? If I will want to install some kvm guests that use multicast address for certain services, is it recommended to enable STP? Thanks.

Hello, when talking about networking in hypervisors, it's easy to distinguish the two classic configurations, NAT and bridged, and the official libvirt wiki does exactly in this way here [1]. NAT networking is already configured by libvirt creating a bridge called libvirt0, while bridged networking have to be configured manually by the user. The libvirt0 bridge for NAT networking is default

On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:58:49 -0700 Brian Braunstein <brian@bristyle.com> wrote: > hi stephen and tony, > > i have been in contact with both of you and i figured it would make > sense to get you to in contact on this issue, so here's the story: > > stephen is the maintainer of the linux spanning tree bridging code, an > implementation of 802.1D-1998 that has very

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:

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

hi,all sometimes ping fails when enable stp , why? thanks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/virtualization/attachments/20140411/6c24ed40/attachment.html>

hi,all sometimes ping fails when enable stp , why? thanks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/virtualization/attachments/20140411/6c24ed40/attachment.html>

hi,all sometimes ping fails when enable stp , why? thanks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/virtualization/attachments/20140411/6c24ed40/attachment.html>

I've got a run of Shielded Twisted Pair (4 conductors) which used to be a Token Ring Network drop and I'm not using it anymore. Would it be decent to replace the ends with normal analog phone connectors and use it for a phone extension, or is STP unsuitable for that? Thanks Steve

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

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.

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|--- |

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

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

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 @@

On 16.09.2015 12:18, C.L. Martinez wrote: > On 09/16/2015 10:15 AM, Dmitry E. Mikhailov wrote: >> On 09/16/2015 03:02 PM, C.L. Martinez wrote: >>> What advantages and disadvantages have?? If I will want to install >>> some kvm guests that use multicast address for certain services, is it >>> recommended to enable STP? >> STP has nothing to do with

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

I saw some big mistakes, here's the correct version : -------------------------------------------------------------------- void br_send_config_bpdu(struct net_bridge_port *p, struct bpdu *bpdu) { unsigned char buf[42]; buf[0] = bpdu->bpdu_header.protocol[0]; //0x00 buf[1] = bpdu->bpdu_header.protocol[1]; //0x00 buf[2] = bpdu->bpdu_header.version; //0x02 buf[3] =