[Bridge] RSTP implementation choice

[Benoit PAPILLAULT <benoit.papillault@free.fr>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Stephen Hemminger a écrit :

| That said, we really need to get the STP updated to RSTP. There are
currently
| four options:

I agree since RSTP is now part of 802.1D-2004 and is backward compatible
with STP (with some limitations of course).

|
| 1) Existing userlevel RSTP daemon based on rstplib.
| 2) New RSTP code (from EMC) as daemon
| 3) Update of old STP kernel code to RSTP, this was done on ancient 2.4
|    for embedded system
| 4) Port EMC RSTP code to kernel
|
| There doesn't appear to be lots of advantages to user space RSTP long term
| and the conversion process would be more painful.
|
| EMC code is slightly uglier (sorry) but has advantage of being recently
| interop tested.
|
| I don't have an easy answer, otherwise I would have just chosen one
and gone
| with it.

I like the userspace implementation (I intend to dig into it a bit
more). RSTP does not handle lots of traffic so it's fine to have it in
user mode. It would avoid to have the kernel bloated a bit more.

Moreover, I'm trying to design a new bridge protocol and it would help
to implement it in userspace with a clean rtnetlink API.

After all, routing protocols are not implemented into the kernel. Only
routing tables are.

My 2 cents,
Benoit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFIKerSOR6EySwP7oIRAhjPAKCT0z70+0GMtScLoMWECSlDQgzpAwCgpY/a
xvYeDb9xFHulOz8SuecEE5M=
=9D00
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----