Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 23:28:56 -0700 From: Jo Rhett <jrhett@svcolo.com> To: Martin Horcicka <martin@horcicka.eu> Cc: pyunyh@gmail.com, Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com>, Alan Amesbury <amesbury@umn.edu>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD boots too fast on Dell PE850 Message-ID: <20060819062856.GA38659@svcolo.com> In-Reply-To: <437bc1590608180500y7e99ad02p329ffae629342d44@mail.gmail.com> References: <44E51C93.5090000@umn.edu> <20060818021643.GA74158@dan.emsphone.com> <437bc1590608180151m1017a50cg31c7817d1aeb0dfe@mail.gmail.com> <20060818092255.GD55509@cdnetworks.co.kr> <437bc1590608180423n513b58c1yd978b2fcf8997ef6@mail.gmail.com> <20060818113305.GF86440@hugo10.ka.punkt.de> <437bc1590608180500y7e99ad02p329ffae629342d44@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 02:00:06PM +0200, Martin Horcicka wrote: > This is a little off-topic (and I'm no Cisco specialist) but I'm > afraid that the loop detection won't happen with portfast. Cisco.com > says (the first page that Google gave me): I've deleted the cisco verbage for brevity, but that doesn't mean loops won't be detected. It means that it will behave like any STP port in forwarding state -- forward packets until it detects a loop. The "problem" is that if you were to link the networks together using portfast ports then it could take 5-20 seconds for the switch to get a clue. (I've never seen it take longer if enough traffic to create a problem was transiting the port) -- Jo Rhett senior geek SVcolo : Silicon Valley Colocation
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060819062856.GA38659>