Dylan Hall wrote: > Most Cisco switches will generate a loopback packet (ethertype 0x9000) > at fairly regular intervals. Both the src and dst mac addresses are set > to the interface mac of the port emitting the packets. In the event a > loop exists in the network that hasn't been dealt with by (R)STP the > switch will receive the packet back on another of it's interfaces. In > the event one of the loopback packets does make it back to the switch > the port is error-disabled (I can't remember if it's the sending or > receiving port that is disabled). This mechanism is independent of > STP. > > UDLD also seems to have a mechanism to detect a port that is looped back > on itself. Again, independent of STP. > you can also add cisco loop guard to the list, but this is an improvement to standard STP, not a different protocol > Rather than modifying STP would it not be better to implement something > like the above as a standalone daemon? I agree, but it is also true that if we can improve STP without breaking compatibility there is no reason to not do it. _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
