From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 7 09:06:48 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0858616A417 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 09:06:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from silver.salonen@gmail.com) Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.189]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A9A013C447 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 09:06:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from silver.salonen@gmail.com) Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id b2so304808nfb for ; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 01:06:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; bh=wMr0oT/z34exm9LLXsMdZsmhFO9Nid99+MvA4e6KAUA=; b=b6GXnxUVmTO5zhM8b2U1yfibqOScoM5SafFb3P6u1F7LENcGEikLCIiUZv6xfcKt8vrjGN3zjgMUMJDJeDoWe7j6cY81QkeXu8D7amhejDDV36VohUe6Hr2W3kWMWEVwnKkRADtsz9WVLIpYqMZod+jesJ42pXJeg/ztgSHvDbo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; b=Vp9WU3bGpeLn9i4ILnLtDp/tlmcpH99FwVhFJkGFd6BqbgyHOyDciJhvDYRdOP5IASMfM8SYjz5zhRFQvE/8DHFOhCl9G2YCORFaVnQUzauLwXhNYOR2PuZ31N++w4GDooz6VnB2oyE6QHrmehQgy+2AlAaF/DOtJLpe8PizXsU= Received: by 10.86.58.3 with SMTP id g3mr1996072fga.1197018406194; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 01:06:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?192.168.8.99? ( [195.50.198.178]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 3sm2059651fge.2007.12.07.01.06.44 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 07 Dec 2007 01:06:45 -0800 (PST) From: Silver Salonen To: Nikos Vassiliadis Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 11:06:36 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <14188023.post@talk.nabble.com> <200712061537.22617.silver.salonen@gmail.com> <200712061700.23471.nvass@teledomenet.gr> In-Reply-To: <200712061700.23471.nvass@teledomenet.gr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200712071106.37492.silver.salonen@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: enabling if_bridge STP X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 09:06:48 -0000 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