Stephen, Since your trick is using 2 (even 4) priority bits, do you think it could cause some cmpatibility issue with other STP implementation which still uses these bits? (it seems to me that port priority is local significant. maybe we can use all 8 bits for port ID, can't we?) If we take other approaches, like create more than one bridges on one Linux box, I am not sure if it is feasible, since I saw all bridges created on the box have the same bridge ID. Thanks! On 11/3/05, Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hai Wang 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? > > So, could you add a bridge group of bridge groups? > > Ben > > -- > Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.osdl.org/pipermail/bridge/attachments/20051104/ae9a95a7/attachment-0001.htm
