On Thu, 2008-05-08 at 14:13 +0200, Francesco Dolcini wrote: > Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-05-08 at 11:04 +0200, Francesco Dolcini wrote: > >> cisco and others solved this kind of problem using proprietary > >> unidirectional link detection protocols (see cisco informational rfc > >> 5171 for example). No standard exists as far as I know (BFD rfc does not > >> consider the layer 2 case). > > > > Are these proprietary unidirectional link detection protocols the only > > way to solve the problem? > spanning tree protocol, in the various IEEE incarnation (802.1D, 802.1Q) > and cisco (PVSTP) does not handle this problem, so an external mechanism > is needed. Do they explicitly ban it? Otherwise I don't see why not the kernel STP can be enchanted. You could even view it as an external mechanism. > > > Would STP break if the interface was set to "non forwarding" in this > > case until the bridge stops seeing its own STP messages? > At least this will not solve the more general problem of a > unidirectional link (rx working and tx broken). hmm, if TX is broken there won't be a loop anyway? Anyhow, even if my proposed change doesn't solve all cases it seems like a useful, very simple, ad don to STP. I am just concerned that it can break some other aspect of STP. So far it seems OK. What is the bridge maintainers view on this? Jocke _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
