From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4829EAD2.3060401@free.fr> Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 21:24:02 +0200 From: Benoit PAPILLAULT MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1210152122.32216.95.camel@gentoo-jocke.transmode.se> <2e59e6970805071916r701987fdx49bab341420ba2d@mail.gmail.com> <1210233718.32216.121.camel@gentoo-jocke.transmode.se> <2e59e6970805122010v50dcd5al101ae3466b897ad6@mail.gmail.com> <20080513102806.55f16b36@extreme> In-Reply-To: <20080513102806.55f16b36@extreme> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Bridge] RSTP implementation choice List-Id: Linux Ethernet Bridging List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: Bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, joakim.tjernlund@transmode.se -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Stephen Hemminger a =E9crit : | 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=3D =3D9D00 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----