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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?56733D49.8040103>