Stephen, Can you tell me how you did the trick in code? From what you said that max of limit only can be 1023, 6000 is not doable, right? Regards! On 11/3/05, Hai Wang <hwang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Can you tell me how you did the trick? From what you said that max of > limit only can be 1028, no more, right? > > Regards! > > -- > Hai Wang > Principle Software Engineer > Fine Point Technologies, Inc. > 139 Centre Street, 6th Floor > New York, New York 10013-4408 > email: hwang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > phone: +1.212.962.7410 x 326 > fax: +1.212.962.7404 > web: http://www.finepoint.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: bridge-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:bridge-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stephen Hemminger > Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 6:33 PM > To: Hai Wang > Cc: bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [Bridge] Bridge question > > On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 18:17:37 -0500 > Hai Wang <u2.ireland@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Stephen, > > > > Did you mean that the #255 limit is set in 2.4 Kernel, not > > > bridge-utility? I am wondering why there is such limit, > > > performance-related, or...? If I have to modify kernel 2.4 to exceed > the > > > limit, can you tell me where I should look at? Any drawback if I > increase > > > the limit up to 6000? > > > > > Spanning tree protocol has limit on the protocol of 16 bits for port_id. > originally 8 bits were for priority and 8 bits were for port number, > but I added the cheat that vendors were using of using 2 bits of > priority > for port number. > > -- > Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx> > OSDL http://developer.osdl.org/~shemminger > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.osdl.org/pipermail/bridge/attachments/20051103/6ba6b5c2/attachment.htm
