* [Bridge] forwarding delay
@ 2004-01-27 19:15 P
2004-01-28 0:08 ` Stephen Hemminger
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: P @ 2004-01-27 19:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bridge
Hi,
I'm using linux 2.4.20 here and noticed that even
when STP is disabled for a bridge, the forwarding delay
still takes affect. Is this correct? I.E. Does the
bridge need to spend time in the "listening" and
"learning" states when STP isn't used?
It's an easy work around to set the delay to 0,
I'm just wondering whether it's a buglet or
by design.
thanks,
Pádraig.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bridge] forwarding delay
2004-01-27 19:15 [Bridge] forwarding delay P
@ 2004-01-28 0:08 ` Stephen Hemminger
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Hemminger @ 2004-01-28 0:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: P; +Cc: bridge
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 19:15:47 +0000
P@draigBrady.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm using linux 2.4.20 here and noticed that even
> when STP is disabled for a bridge, the forwarding delay
> still takes affect. Is this correct? I.E. Does the
> bridge need to spend time in the "listening" and
> "learning" states when STP isn't used?
>
> It's an easy work around to set the delay to 0,
> I'm just wondering whether it's a buglet or
> by design.
I think it was a design decision to avoid forwarding data until
some state was acquired. It is annoying if you don't expect it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-01-28 0:08 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-01-27 19:15 [Bridge] forwarding delay P
2004-01-28 0:08 ` Stephen Hemminger
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox