Stephen Hemminger wrote: > 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. I do not agree, I absolutely think that linux STP must be 100% compatible with IEEE standard, but if we can improve it, adding additional functions without breaking 100% compatibility, why not do 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. I think that having user space STP can make easier to have different implementation of STP algorithms available: - plain old 802.1D legacy slow STP - 802.1D-2004 RSTP - 802.1Q-2005 MSTP - Cisco proprietary PVSTP - Cisco proprietary PVRSTP Or we just need "one protocol to rule them all"? What I think that is really missing at the moment, apart from RSTP, is a vlan aware forwarding engine in the bridge code. > EMC code is slightly uglier (sorry) but has advantage of being recently > interop tested. The original rstplib is outdated, it implement the old 802.1w standard. We have a working implementation updated to the latest standard (802.1D 2004) of rstplib, if it can be usefull we can think about releasing it. Francesco _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
