On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 01:39 +0530, Srinivas M.A. wrote: > > > > I don't like the bridge-stp <bridge> start/stop interface. Why > > would bridge-stp know what bridge to run RTSP on? A more natural > > way, IMHO, would to extend brctl with a "rstp on" method. Why > > is there one rstpctl tool and one brctl tool? > > I wrote rstpctl to just control the rstp daemon. Should integrate it > with brctl, making it so that brctl checks whether kernel STP or RSTP > is being used and sets either kernel STP config or sends the config to > rstpd as appropriate. I haven't gotten around to that. > > I don't like bridge-stp scheme too much either, especially after > realizing the RTNL lock limitation, but it is just enough to get > things working if we don't try to start rstpd from within it (though > the sample does that.) Given the amount of trouble bridge-stp seems to > cause, I should probably work on a different kernel interface for > indicating userspace stp. > Curious, why is RSTP in user space? Lots of protocols are in the kernel, why not RSTP too? Are any known issues with the in kernel STP? I haven't read 802.1D-2004 but I know RSTP is in there, does RSTP replace the old STP protocol? If not, is there any reason to prefer STP before RSTP in some cases? Jocke _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
