Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 22:55:05 +0000 From: Steven Hartland <steven@multiplay.co.uk> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r292379 - in head/sys: netinet netinet6 Message-ID: <56733D49.8040103@multiplay.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20151217192051.GM42340@FreeBSD.org> References: <201512162226.tBGMQSvs098886@repo.freebsd.org> <20151217003824.GG42340@FreeBSD.org> <5672C6AE.7070407@freebsd.org> <20151217192051.GM42340@FreeBSD.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On 17/12/2015 19:20, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> Steven,
>
> another feasible solution for the design described in the 156226
> would be to run STP on the switches, and if_bridge(4) instead of
> if_lagg(4) on FreeBSD, also with STP enabled. Would work perfectly.
>
> Of course, if switches are dumb and cheap, and can't do STP,
> then a tiny bpf-writer is the right solution.
>
> P.S. When I was running network in my university dormitory, we
> used a lot of cheap solutions, and a lot of dirty workarounds,
> but none of the latter made its way to FreeBSD kernel. You can
> also ask Eugene Grosbein, he also has huge experience of living
> on not so pleasant workarounds, but not pushing them agrressively
> into the kernel.
>
Last time I heard STP is a bad word in networking, so I'm sure they
network team
would have me crucified for even suggesting it and start shouting MLAG
for the
rest of the day ;-)
Regards
Steve
help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?56733D49.8040103>