similar to: [Bridge] [PATCH 2.4] Bridge STP message age

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 @@

Fixes message_age field update in config BPDUs. Also checks whether the BPDU message age has exceeded bridge max age before transmitting config BPDUs. Signed-off-by: Kishore A K <KishoreAK@myw.ltindia.com> Index: linux-2.6.7/net/bridge/br_stp.c ============================================================= --- linux-2.6.7/net/bridge/br_stp.c.orig 2004-06-17 20:17:27.000000000 +0530 +++

Hi, I'm trying to modify the stp kernel files in order to implements the RSTP. I've already modify the bpdu format like this : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ typedef struct { int topo_change = 0; int proposal = 0; int port_role[2] = {0,0} ; //role du port ?metteur du BPDU

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] =

This changes the message_age_timer calculation to use the BPDU's max age as opposed to the local bridge's max age. This is in accordance with section 8.6.2.3.2 Step 2 of the 802.1D-1998 sprecification. With the current implementation, when running with very large bridge diameters, convergance will not always occur even if a root bridge is configured to have a longer max age. Tested

Hi. I'm not subscribed, so please Cc: me. This trivial patch fixes a typo that irritates me every time I boot.. --- linux-2.5.orig/net/bridge/br_stp.c 2004-07-19 14:43:44.000000000 +0300 +++ linux-2.5/net/bridge/br_stp.c 2004-07-19 14:53:15.000000000 +0300 @@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ int isroot = br_is_root_bridge(br); pr_info("%s: topology change detected, %s\n",

Merge the ioctl stub calls that just end up calling the sub-function to do the actual ioctl. Move br_get_XXX_ifindices into the ioctl file as well where they can be static. diff -Nru a/net/bridge/br_device.c b/net/bridge/br_device.c --- a/net/bridge/br_device.c 2004-05-20 10:51:05 -07:00 +++ b/net/bridge/br_device.c 2004-05-20 10:51:05 -07:00 @@ -19,21 +19,6 @@ #include <asm/uaccess.h>

Hi all, I try to reduce the time of link break detection for the STP. I want to make a timer who detect a link failure within a few times instead of waiting max age timeout. The problem is that my timer isn't take in account by the bride and i really don't know why, can someone help me ? Here's what I've done : in file br_stp_timer.c : /* called under bridge lock */ static

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 tried to send the BDPU at less than 1 second in a STP implementation. When I look at STP info with brctl in tells me that the bpdu are send under the second but in fact it's "only" every second. Is it because we can't send BPDU less than 1 second or something else ? Thanks for your response HENRY Simon ------------------------------------------ Faites un voeu et

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

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 , Im new in this list, and Im trying to find a Spanning Tree source code, the kind that runs in bridges and switches. Does anybody know wher I can find it? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, -- Francisco Trindade fmtrindade@inf.ufrgs.br

Hi I'm looking for code that implements the 802.1d spanning tree. Do you have an idea where can I download this code? Thanks Yossi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/bridge/attachments/20050818/692b471a/attachment-0002.htm

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

OK... but why does it need to be a trunk port? Boris. On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 6:53 PM, SilverTip257 <silvertip257 at gmail.com> wrote: > Andrew and Dennis are spot on. > Their conclusions about your server being connected to an access port and > not a trunk port would be my conclusion as well. > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn < > dennisml at

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

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:

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:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I have a machine running 2.6.18-rc3 with a bridge config that looks like this: cr1:~# brctl show bridge name bridge id STP enabled interfaces vlan100 36b0.0007e90f40c1 yes eth0.100 eth2.100 vlan101 5dc0.0007e90f40c1 yes