similar to: [Bridge] forwarding delay

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

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

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 list! i'm trying to find a convenient way to build a redundant filtering bridge under linux i looked at carp project, but carp doesn't support bridge now i thing the most appropriate way is using stp or rstp it seems that 2.6 kernel supports stp but what about rstp? I read some docs about stp, but they are rather outdated (2001 and kernel 2.2) there are several problems indeed: *

Fixes a typo in net/bridge/br_stp_if.c --- a/net/bridge/br_stp_if.c +++ b/net/bridge/br_stp_if.c @@ -132,7 +132,7 @@ static void br_stp_start(struct net_bridge *br) } else { br->stp_enabled = BR_KERNEL_STP; printk(KERN_INFO "%s: starting userspace STP failed, " - "staring kernel STP\n",

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

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 03:51:57 -0600 Sean Reifschneider <jafo@tummy.com> wrote: > Greetings. I've been experimenting with bridging an ethernet device > with an ethertap device (using the Linux tun/tap driver). This is > running with the bridge code in the Linux kernel version 2.4.20 as > provided by Red Hat (2.4.20-18.9). I also seem to have seen the problem > with

Is it possible to set up a non-forwarding bridge? I have two interfaces that I'd like to combine, where one is a fast main link and the other is a slower backup. I'd like traffic to go out the fast link only, if it is available, and failover to the backup if it is not available. I never want to forward packets between the interfaces. My specific setup is a laptop with a 100M ethernet and

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, 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

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, Is there any particular reason why the same physical port cannot be added to multiple bridges? Is it because of STP? If I am not using STP - can I change the code to have the same physical port in 2 VLANs? Is that a safe change? Thanks, Abhijit

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

1. Link state monitoring added. We discovered the following problem with the existing bridge code. The code doesn't monitor the link state of the interfaces. When using two cisco switches with two Linux bridging firewalls the following problem exists. When the Cisco switch that has the blocking (stp) Linux bridge attached dies, the Linux bridge no longer receives stp packets and changes

As I start on STP enhancements, it is worth asking, how many users of bridge actually use STP, and if so how big a network is involved.

I have read several articles for setting up a network bridge. My configuration is: WorkStation --> Switch0:VLAN1 --> Switch1:VLAN1 --> bridge --> Switch1:VLAN45 --> Laptop I am running CentOS 4.3 on the bridge #> brctl show bridge name bridge id STP enabled interfaces br0 8000.0030843e5aa2 no eth1

Hi, With an rsync-2.6.4-3 client talking to an rsync-2.6.8-1.el4.rf server at least, the --ignore-times option seems not to be honoured? I.E. if I edit a file so that the mtime and size are the same, the file with the new data will not be transfered to the server. In case it's important, the full command I run is: rsync -viIaz --delete -e ssh . www.pixelbeat.org:'~/public_html'

hi i've setup the following on debian etch with bridge-utils 1.4 (backported) and kernel 2.6.26 from backports.org: vlan10 with raw device eth0 vlan20 with raw device eth0 br10 with initial port vlan10 br20 with initial port vlan20 i've set hw addr to DE:AD:BE:EF:34:10 for br10 and DE:AD:BE:EF:34:20 for br20 the bridges are used to connect virtual machine nic's. "brctl

Here is the proposed revision to the bridge utilities interface to the kernel. The driving force is that the existing interface can't easily be converted to 32/64 bit compat. Right now, the bridge-utils (brctl) tries to handle 32bit command on 64 bit kernel, but the code is limited to sparc and wrong. Here is what I am thinking. get version - not needed? get bridges -

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