From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jaime Nebrera In-Reply-To: <1210152122.32216.95.camel@gentoo-jocke.transmode.se> References: <1210152122.32216.95.camel@gentoo-jocke.transmode.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 11:33:02 +0200 Message-Id: <1210152782.4861.6.camel@blas> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Bridge] STP bug, loop not detetcted List-Id: Linux Ethernet Bridging List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: joakim.tjernlund@transmode.se Cc: Bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org Hi Joakim, I'm not aware if Linux bridge is aware of this. I can tell you that in general, STP has problems when mixed with VLANs. To solve this some extensions have arised: PVST by Cisco, MSTP, an improvement more or less estandarized and PVST+, a new update only available in Cisco environments. In general they run multiple "STP" instances per VLAN or VLAN group. Regards El mi=C3=A9, 07-05-2008 a las 11:22 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund escribi=C3=B3: > Got a bridge with 4 optical VLAN interfaces, eth1.1, eth1.2, eth1.3 and > eth1.4, attached and the builtin STP enabled. eth1 is connected to > a "switch" with 4 real interfaces, each real interface maps to one of > the above mentioned VLANs. =20 >=20 > If I loop two or more interfaces by connecting each interface's output > to its own input, I get a loop that STP doesn't detect. > Looping by connecting an output from one interface to another interface > input works fine. >=20 > Bug or limitation in STP? If limitation, would RSTP help here? >=20 > Kernel 2.6.25 >=20 > Jocke =20 > _______________________________________________ > Bridge mailing list > Bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge --=20 Jaime Nebrera - jnebrera@eneotecnologia.com Consultor TI - ENEO Tecnologia SL Pol. PISA - C/ Manufactura 6, P1, 3B Mairena del Aljarafe - 41927 - Sevilla Telf.- 955 60 11 60 / 619 04 55 18