On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 08:20:59PM +0100, Binand Sethumadhavan wrote: > On 12/01/07, Ray Van Dolson <rvandolson@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >The network team here does not want to adjust STP and PortFast settings on > >an > >individual basis. They have legitimate reasons, but in the end it means I > >need to find a way to make pump handle STP better -- ISC does it. > > I think there are quite reasonable arguments to be made for not > enabling STP negotiations on ports that don't need it (ie, enable STP > only on an individual port basis). If the device connected to a port > can talk STP (a Linux box?) and take part in the negotiations as a > rogue, can't it create havoc in an otherwise perfectly tuned network > leading to a DoS? > Yes, I agree that STP doesn't need to be on by default. Their currently policy is just not to make individual port settings changes any longer as systems here tend to get moved without notice causing issues. Anyways, it will take some time to get that policy changed, so in the short term I am trying to see what can be done to get pump to work within this environment. Ray
