Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 11:06:36 +0200 From: Silver Salonen <silver.salonen@gmail.com> To: Nikos Vassiliadis <nvass@teledomenet.gr> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: enabling if_bridge STP Message-ID: <200712071106.37492.silver.salonen@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200712061700.23471.nvass@teledomenet.gr> References: <14188023.post@talk.nabble.com> <200712061537.22617.silver.salonen@gmail.com> <200712061700.23471.nvass@teledomenet.gr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday 06 December 2007 17:00, Nikos Vassiliadis wrote: > On Thursday 06 December 2007 15:37:21 Silver Salonen wrote: > > In my case there's a straight connection between bridge1 > > and bridge2 too, so that they don't have to communicate through > > root-bridge. > > Yes, but that also can create a loop and according to STP must be > eliminated. > > Perhaps you can use some inventive IP addressing scheme, to force > direct communication... some ifconfig option(the edge option?) to > force forwarding... a tunnel... or some other weirdness(TM) ;) Well, I just discovered STP, so I might expect too much from it. I thought that in my scenario (circular VPNs), STP would just discover what's the shortest way (ie. whitch VPN-connection to go) from 192.168.1/24 to 192.168.2/24, from 192.168.1/24 to 192.168.3/24, from 192.168.2/24 to 192.168.3/24 etc, and then just lets all the packets (including layer 2 ones) pass the right bridge, and block them on other bridges, eliminating possibility for loops. If it's not what STP does, then I'm a little confused, what does STP do. -- Silver
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200712071106.37492.silver.salonen>