Is any one willing to look into this problem? Or even aknowledege it's existence? If the description is not clear, please let me know. Any response would be appreciated. regards, Uli > Hi, > In July 2007 Philip Craig reported the following issue with 'forward > delay'=0 in great detail without receiving an answer. Has Philip's message > got lost or was his analysis wrong? > The problem becomes a real problem if you bridge a fast LAN to a slow port > like a bluetooth pan for example. > > > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/bridge/2007-July/005476.html > Philip Craig philipc at snapgear.com > > > Hi, > > > > If you set the bridge forward delay to 0 with: > > brctl setfd br0 0 > > then the bridge does not learn addresses for the first 20 seconds, > > and so it floods everything during this time. > > > > The reason for this is that hold_time() returns 0 after a topology > > change, br_fdb_update() is a no-op if hold_time() is 0 (so that > > 'brctl setmaxage br0 0' can be used to disable learning), and the > > topology change flag isn't cleared for max_age seconds, so nothing > > is learnt during that time. > > > > It seems that the intent of hold_time() is to expire entries that are > > older than forward_delay seconds at the time of the topology change, > > which it does, but then it keeps on checking this expiry again for > > max_age seconds, and bases these checks on the current time rather > > than the time of the change. > > > > A quick fix for the forward delay 0 case would be to skip the > > topology change check if stp is disabled, but if I understand things > > correctly then the expiry isn't right for non-zero cases either. > > _______________________________________________ > Bridge mailing list > Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
