Re: Query on Sapnning tree implementation from standard point of view

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



With below setting I was able to run the test on all 4 devices

Message Age = 19 (encoded as 0x13 0x00)
Max Age = 20 (encoded as 0x14 0x00)
Hello Time = 255 (encoded as 0xFF 0xFF)
Forward Delay = 255 (encoded as 0xFF 0xFF)

The results are:

Linux bridge:

Accepting the new BPDU and accepting all fields as it is given above.


Netgear:

Not accepting the BPDU, advertising its own with values message age:0, max age: 20, hello time :2 and forward delay 15


Dlink:
Not accepting the BPDU , advertising its own with values message age:0, max age: 20,

hello time :2 and forward delay 15


Cisco:

Not accepting the BPDU, advertising its own with values message age:0, max age: 20,

hello time :2 and forward delay 15.

In Cisco the configuration is

2950#show spanning-tree summary
Root bridge for: VLAN0001.
Extended system ID is enabled.
PortFast BPDU Guard is disabled
EtherChannel misconfiguration guard is enabled
UplinkFast is disabled
BackboneFast is disabled
Default pathcost method used is short

Name                   Blocking Listening Learning Forwarding STP Active
---------------------- -------- --------- -------- ---------- ----------
VLAN0001                  0        0         0        2          2
---------------------- -------- --------- -------- ---------- ----------
1 vlan                    0        0         0        2          2

======================================

So for the given values except linux all switches are dropping/ignoring the packet.

Regards,
Sujata

--- On Mon, 6/18/12, Vitalii Demianets <vitas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Vitalii Demianets <vitas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Query on Sapnning tree implementation from standard point of view
To: bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Monday, June 18, 2012, 5:18 PM

On Friday 15 June 2012 15:25:39 Sujata Verma wrote:
> Thanks. I was doing the same experiment on few switches, i could get hold
> of and this is the result:
>
> Cisco Switch catalyst 2950 : Completely ignoring the packet, so validations
> are proper.

Hello, Sujata!
Would the result of the experiment differ if you set Message Age and Max Age
to the correct values while leaving Hello Time and Forward Delay incorrect:
Message Age = 19 (encoded as 0x13 0x00)
Max Age = 20 (encoded as 0x14 0x00)
Hello Time = 255 (encoded as 0xFF 0x00)
Forward Delay = 255 (encoded as 0xFF 0x00)

How would Cisco switch handle such BPDUs?

--
With Best Regards,
Vitalii Demianets
_______________________________________________
Bridge mailing list
Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge

[Index of Archives]     [Netdev]     [AoE Tools]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]

  Powered by Linux