similar to: [Bridge] Multi-interface bridge configuration help

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

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:

Hi, we're running the standard linux bridge setup (redundant bridge) for 5 years now. So first of all, thanks to everyone involved for implementing the bridging feature in Linux. Now I'm trying to bridge hosts connected to VLAN'ed Cisco switches using linux bridge. I'm testing the following setup (Kernel 2.6.19, bridge-utils 1.2 on both bridges)

Hello, I am experiencing what may be a unique problem with operating the bridge. My hardware is custom Freescale MPC875 processor based with one ethernet (eth0) and one hdlc (hdlc0) WAN port and I am connecting two of these boards together using the WAN ports over a long distance - essentially two bridges in series. They are running Linux 2.6.15 with bridging enabled in the kernel

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, This may sound crazy but I will go ahead anyway. Here's my scenario: ifconfig bond0 10.10.10.1 netmask 255.0.0.0 ifenslave bond0 eth0 ifenslave bond0 eth1 brctl addbr stp0 brctl addif stp0 bond0 brctl stp stp0 on Is this a valid scenario? I am trying to bond two interfaces and run STP over the bonded interface..The problem I am trying to solve is to run STP over aggregated links

I am battling an issue with use of bridging with xen. For some yet undetermined reason supposedly relating to stp, they assign a mac address of fe:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff to the bridge. Was hoping someone here may be able to elaborate on that. If I enslave a bridge to an ethernet, and than restart that network interface, should the bridge operation behave the same after the ip interface is restarted?

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

Hello Stephen, I may have tracked down some unexpected behaviour from a common bridge setup, and would like to incite expert oppinion on my observations. The issue relates to both 2.6 and 2.4 kernel series bridging code, and as far as I can see might have been present in all releases hitherto. Consider this setup: - two ethernet devices in a simple bridge configuration - bridge-interface

Hallo, I have running xen-4.2/linux-3.8 (compiled) on any hosts. - dell pe r720: drac, eth0-3:igb squeeze -> boot_xen:ok net:ok bridge:ok - dell pe R620: drac=eth0, eth1-3:tg3 wheezy -> boot_xen:ok net:ok bridge:fail So i running "xend start" (or "xenbridges start") on my patient (R620 with broadcom tg3) network will be lost: RTNETLINK answers: File exists

All is in subject. Example : root@harobed:~ # brctl show bridge name bridge id STP enabled interfaces root@harobed:~ # ifconfig lo Lien encap:Boucle locale inet adr:127.0.0.1 Masque:255.0.0.0 adr inet6: ::1/128 Scope:H?te UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1 RX packets:16510 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=900 Summary: Bridging issue: IP packets with Multicast Ethernet Address Product: netfilter/iptables Version: unspecified Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component: bridging AssignedTo:

hi everyone, so,first it seemed a trivial question to me, but since I could not find anybody being neither able to answer this question nor giving a short config example. after a few sleepless nights and exhausting all the reading and research. here I am sharing my problem with all of you, in the hope of some possible solution/sugestion. or is it that this is impossible?? below my

Hi I have recently reconfigured my system to a Bridge based architecture on the basis that I have an ADSL Modem/Router with a Public address on the Wan side and a Private address on the Lan side. I am running a Debian based system kernel 2.6.7 and the Bridging software is installed and working correctly, including startup etc. The problem that I have is in "shorewall start" The

Hi all, Well, I've been trying to set up Debian on an OpenZaurus bootstrap.. well, there were some complications after I enabled bridging between usbnet and via_rhine ethernet, My set up includes, 1. Network interface setup using usbnet 2. Bridge eth0+usb0=>main (bridge name) 3. bootstrap Debian on an NFS volume. There are no lost pockets or any type of kernel oops. I can produce a

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|--- |

For easy reading: http://www.karthaus.nl/r/ Hi, We used to have 1 single ip range (1.1.1.0/24) that had one uplink to a = switch of the colocation provider. Recently we got a second range 2.2.2.0/24 and a redundant uplink = directly on two routers. But our switch does not have spanning tree = protocol support so we cannot use them redundantly. We have set up the switch to have a vlan for both

Thanks for the reply. You are quite right about the routing, and i've advanced to the bridging part. But it will not work. I've finaly gotten access to the switch it's connected to and from the logs i've got this output: Jan 26 16:49:56: %SPANTREE-2-RECV_PVID_ERR: Received BPDU with inconsistent peer vlan id 4 on GigabitEthernet0/1 VLAN40. Jan 26 16:49:56:

Hi, What is the easiest way to bridge between two user-space processes that talk directly to Ethernet interfaces? I have two applications that write/read Ethernet frames to/from Linux Ethernet ports (e.g. eth0). The applications can successfully talk to each other when they run on two machines connected over Ethernet. I would like to be able to test them on a single machine without employing

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