[Bridge] PVST

[Bridge] PVST

[Leigh Sharpe]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 317 bytes --]

Hi All, 
Does the current bridging code handle PVST properly, or just ordinary
STP?
 
Regards,
             Leigh
 
Leigh Sharpe
Network Systems Engineer
Pacific Wireless
Ph +61 3 9584 8966
Mob 0408 009 502
Helpdesk 1300 300 616
email lsharpe@pacificwireless.com.au
web www.pacificwireless.com.au
 


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1141 bytes --]

Re: [Bridge] PVST

[Stephen Hemminger]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:47:42 +1000
"Leigh Sharpe" <lsharpe@pacificwireless.com.au> wrote:

> Hi All, 
> Does the current bridging code handle PVST properly, or just ordinary
> STP?

Ordinary, STP.  The 2.6.22 kernel will have all the bits to run STP in
user mode, and there is a version of RSTP in userspace see:
	git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/shemminger/git/rstp.git

The RSTP code uses the rstplib and it knows about VLAN's, but the hooks
aren't there yet. Eventually, full MSTP 802.Q seems like a good idea.

Someone had sent some patches to do PVST, but PVST seems to be Cisco
centric. and the patched version was too inflexible, so I didn't put
it in mainline.

RE: [Bridge] PVST

[Leigh Sharpe]

So, if I put a linux bridge in a network which has PVST packets flying around, will it pass them, or silently drop them?
Should I have STP disabled on my linux box?
(I'm particularly referring to a 6.2.19-ish kernel, before the patches of the last few days) 


Regards,
             Leigh
 
Leigh Sharpe
Network Systems Engineer
Pacific Wireless
Ph +61 3 9584 8966
Mob 0408 009 502
Helpdesk 1300 300 616
email lsharpe@pacificwireless.com.au
web www.pacificwireless.com.au

-----Original Message-----
From: shemminger@linux-foundation.org [mailto:shemminger@linux-foundation.org] 
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 2:07 PM
To: Leigh Sharpe
Cc: bridge
Subject: Re: [Bridge] PVST

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:47:42 +1000
"Leigh Sharpe" <lsharpe@pacificwireless.com.au> wrote:

> Hi All, 
> Does the current bridging code handle PVST properly, or just ordinary
> STP?

Ordinary, STP.  The 2.6.22 kernel will have all the bits to run STP in
user mode, and there is a version of RSTP in userspace see:
	git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/shemminger/git/rstp.git

The RSTP code uses the rstplib and it knows about VLAN's, but the hooks
aren't there yet. Eventually, full MSTP 802.Q seems like a good idea.

Someone had sent some patches to do PVST, but PVST seems to be Cisco
centric. and the patched version was too inflexible, so I didn't put
it in mainline.

RE: [Bridge] PVST

[Leigh Sharpe]

>(I'm particularly referring to a 6.2.19-ish kernel, before the patches of the last few days) 

Err, perhaps I actually mean 2.6.19-ish....

-----Original Message-----
From: Leigh Sharpe 
Sent: Friday, 27 April 2007 2:53 PM
To: shemminger
Cc: bridge
Subject: RE: [Bridge] PVST


So, if I put a linux bridge in a network which has PVST packets flying around, will it pass them, or silently drop them?
Should I have STP disabled on my linux box?
(I'm particularly referring to a 6.2.19-ish kernel, before the patches of the last few days) 


Regards,
             Leigh
 
Leigh Sharpe
Network Systems Engineer
Pacific Wireless
Ph +61 3 9584 8966
Mob 0408 009 502
Helpdesk 1300 300 616
email lsharpe@pacificwireless.com.au
web www.pacificwireless.com.au

-----Original Message-----
From: shemminger@linux-foundation.org [mailto:shemminger@linux-foundation.org] 
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 2:07 PM
To: Leigh Sharpe
Cc: bridge
Subject: Re: [Bridge] PVST

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:47:42 +1000
"Leigh Sharpe" <lsharpe@pacificwireless.com.au> wrote:

> Hi All, 
> Does the current bridging code handle PVST properly, or just ordinary
> STP?

Ordinary, STP.  The 2.6.22 kernel will have all the bits to run STP in
user mode, and there is a version of RSTP in userspace see:
	git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/shemminger/git/rstp.git

The RSTP code uses the rstplib and it knows about VLAN's, but the hooks
aren't there yet. Eventually, full MSTP 802.Q seems like a good idea.

Someone had sent some patches to do PVST, but PVST seems to be Cisco
centric. and the patched version was too inflexible, so I didn't put
it in mainline.



_______________________________________________
Bridge mailing list
Bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge

[Bridge] Re: PVST

[Benny Amorsen]

>>>>> "SH" == Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org> writes:

SH> Someone had sent some patches to do PVST, but PVST seems to be
SH> Cisco centric. and the patched version was too inflexible, so I
SH> didn't put it in mainline.

PVST is indeed Cisco centric. It is also the only way to stay sane if
you have several VLAN's.

However, isn't PVST the same as making a br100 out of eth0.100 and
eth1.100, and turning STP on? Hopefully the STP packets should then
emerge with a VLAN tag of 100.


/Benny

Re: [Bridge] Re: PVST

[Stephen Hemminger]

On 27 Apr 2007 15:43:00 +0200
Benny Amorsen <benny+usenet@amorsen.dk> wrote:

> >>>>> "SH" == Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org> writes:
> 
> SH> Someone had sent some patches to do PVST, but PVST seems to be
> SH> Cisco centric. and the patched version was too inflexible, so I
> SH> didn't put it in mainline.
> 
> PVST is indeed Cisco centric. It is also the only way to stay sane if
> you have several VLAN's.
> 
> However, isn't PVST the same as making a br100 out of eth0.100 and
> eth1.100, and turning STP on? Hopefully the STP packets should then
> emerge with a VLAN tag of 100.
> 
> 
> /Benny
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bridge mailing list
> Bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge

The problem is if you bridge two vlan's then the Cisco box will
see two STP bpdu's arrive, and conclude that there is a cycle and
bring the link down.

-- 
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org>

[Bridge] Re: PVST

[Benny Amorsen]

>>>>> "SH" == Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org> writes:

SH> The problem is if you bridge two vlan's then the Cisco box will
SH> see two STP bpdu's arrive, and conclude that there is a cycle and
SH> bring the link down.

Even if the VLAN's are both numbered 100?

Bridging eth0.100 with eth1.101 won't work if a Cisco is involved, but
that is not so surprising.


/Benny