* [Bridge] delay in bridge learning when forward delay is 0
@ 2007-07-09 7:50 Philip Craig
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Philip Craig @ 2007-07-09 7:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bridge
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bridge] delay in bridge learning when forward delay is 0
@ 2008-09-18 19:33 Uli Luckas
2008-09-24 11:57 ` Uli Luckas
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Uli Luckas @ 2008-09-18 19:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bridge
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bridge] delay in bridge learning when forward delay is 0
2008-09-18 19:33 [Bridge] delay in bridge learning when forward delay is 0 Uli Luckas
@ 2008-09-24 11:57 ` Uli Luckas
2008-10-13 16:04 ` Uli Luckas
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Uli Luckas @ 2008-09-24 11:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bridge
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@lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bridge] delay in bridge learning when forward delay is 0
2008-09-24 11:57 ` Uli Luckas
@ 2008-10-13 16:04 ` Uli Luckas
2008-10-13 18:10 ` Stephen Hemminger
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Uli Luckas @ 2008-10-13 16:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: shemminger; +Cc: Stephen Hemminger, bridge
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2420 bytes --]
> 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@lists.linux-foundation.org
> > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bridge mailing list
> Bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
Hello Stephen,
you are mentioned in the MAINTAINERS file in the linux kernel tree for
"ETHERNET BRIDGE". Could you at least, please acknowledge the reception of
this mail? And maybe let us know what you think of the bug report?
regards,
Uli
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bridge] delay in bridge learning when forward delay is 0
2008-10-13 16:04 ` Uli Luckas
@ 2008-10-13 18:10 ` Stephen Hemminger
2008-10-14 9:36 ` Uli Luckas
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Hemminger @ 2008-10-13 18:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Uli Luckas; +Cc: Stephen Hemminger, bridge
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:04:37 +0200
Uli Luckas <u.luckas@road.de> wrote:
> > 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@lists.linux-foundation.org
> > > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bridge mailing list
> > Bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org
> > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
> Hello Stephen,
> you are mentioned in the MAINTAINERS file in the linux kernel tree for
> "ETHERNET BRIDGE". Could you at least, please acknowledge the reception of
> this mail? And maybe let us know what you think of the bug report?
>
> regards,
> Uli
>
>
Yes, I saw it but the resulting patches were too messy and was
more concerned about breaking other things. It is on my todo list
to go back and fix the hold and forwarding timers in general for
the non STP case. For example, the hold timer keeps running but
is unused when STP is disabled.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bridge] delay in bridge learning when forward delay is 0
2008-10-13 18:10 ` Stephen Hemminger
@ 2008-10-14 9:36 ` Uli Luckas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Uli Luckas @ 2008-10-14 9:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Hemminger; +Cc: bridge
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 805 bytes --]
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:04:37 +0200
> Uli Luckas <u.luckas@road.de> wrote:
> > Hello Stephen,
> > you are mentioned in the MAINTAINERS file in the linux kernel tree for
> > "ETHERNET BRIDGE". Could you at least, please acknowledge the reception
> > of this mail? And maybe let us know what you think of the bug report?
> >
> > regards,
> > Uli
>
> Yes, I saw it but the resulting patches were too messy and was
> more concerned about breaking other things. It is on my todo list
> to go back and fix the hold and forwarding timers in general for
> the non STP case. For example, the hold timer keeps running but
> is unused when STP is disabled.
Hi Stephen,
thanks for your reply.
If there is anything I can do to help in getting this fixed, please let me
know.
regards,
Uli
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-10-14 9:36 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-09-18 19:33 [Bridge] delay in bridge learning when forward delay is 0 Uli Luckas
2008-09-24 11:57 ` Uli Luckas
2008-10-13 16:04 ` Uli Luckas
2008-10-13 18:10 ` Stephen Hemminger
2008-10-14 9:36 ` Uli Luckas
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-07-09 7:50 Philip Craig
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.