---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "riffraff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun,  9 Jun 2002 14:54:45 -0500

>---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
>From: "Nicholas Irving" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 20:15:06 +0100
>
>>Hi all,
>>Has anybody ever tried having a redundant bridge configuration, so that
>>if the first fails the seconds will take over? I need a high
>>availability and cannot seem to find any mention of how, only diagrams
>>of how it should look like.
>>
>>Thanks
>>
>>Nicholas Irving
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>This is what STP takes care of.  You put the multiple bridges between your segments, 
>and they negotiate using STP to decide which bridge will forward packets, and the 
>other one doesn't.  Then, if the first one goes down, the other one will take over 
>and start forwarding packets between the segments.
>
>That's a basic description of the STP process. 

It's possible I didn't say enough.

What this means is that you just stick a second bridge on the network, and they all 
negotiate between each other automatically.  You would, of course, want to test the 
setup by sticking them both on, waiting to see which bridge becomes the root bridge 
(using the brctl commands...I don't remember...wait, just looked it up, it's probably 
the brctl showstp command), and then take the bridge down (using ifdown), and see if 
the other one takes over.  It will take a few seconds (based on the hello and maxage 
time), but then it should pass traffic like normal.  Then bring the first one back up 
and see if it becomes the root bridge again (I believe it should).


_______________________________________________
Bridge mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/mailman/listinfo/bridge

Reply via email to