On Tue, 13 May 2008 03:10:09 +0000 "richardvoigt@xxxxxxxxx" <richardvoigt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 8:01 AM, Joakim Tjernlund > <joakim.tjernlund@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2008-05-08 at 02:16 +0000, richardvoigt@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Joakim Tjernlund > > > <joakim.tjernlund@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Got a bridge with 4 optical VLAN interfaces, eth1.1, eth1.2, eth1.3 and > > > > eth1.4, attached and the builtin STP enabled. eth1 is connected to > > > > a "switch" with 4 real interfaces, each real interface maps to one of > > > > the above mentioned VLANs. > > > > > > > > If I loop two or more interfaces by connecting each interface's output > > > > to its own input, I get a loop that STP doesn't detect. > > > > Looping by connecting an output from one interface to another interface > > > > input works fine. > > > > > > > > Bug or limitation in STP? If limitation, would RSTP help here? > > > > > > Limitation in STP. > > > > > > If a bridge receives one of its own STP packets on the same interface > > > from which it was sent, that indicates a loop elsewhere in the network > > > that disabling an interface locally will not fix, therefore STP takes > > > no action. > > > > I see, would it hurt something else if STP did turn off it interface in > > this case? Optical i/f's is getting more common so these types of loops > > will increase so I think this needs to be addressed. > > Yes, it would hurt. > > For example, this topology: > > br0 - br1 - br2 - br3 - br1 > > There is a loop in br1-br2-br3-br1, so br0 sees its packet come back > on the same interface. If br0 shuts down the interface, it breaks > connectivity. The br0-br1 link is part of a minimal spanning tree so > STP cannot shut it down. There is no way for STP to distinguish your > case, which is misconfigured, from this example, which is a valid use > of redundant links. Spanning Tree absolutely has to follow the standard. What ever the standard says, that is what it should do. No special cases, no changes. Get the standard for free from IEEE (get 802) and read it. That said, we really need to get the STP updated to RSTP. There are currently four options: 1) Existing userlevel RSTP daemon based on rstplib. 2) New RSTP code (from EMC) as daemon 3) Update of old STP kernel code to RSTP, this was done on ancient 2.4 for embedded system 4) Port EMC RSTP code to kernel There doesn't appear to be lots of advantages to user space RSTP long term and the conversion process would be more painful. EMC code is slightly uglier (sorry) but has advantage of being recently interop tested. I don't have an easy answer, otherwise I would have just chosen one and gone with it. _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
