Nikos Vassiliadis-2 wrote: > > On Thursday 06 December 2007 10:17:36 Atrox wrote: >> Am I doing smth wrong? > > Hm, are these FreeBSD boxes you are trying to bridge, > on the same ethernet? >
Yes, all these boxes are connected to our LAN with their ext_ifs. Also, one of them has a switch and a PC connected to its int_if, other int_ifs are "status: no carrier". > STP will create a tree by disabling some ports > to eliminate loops in the topology. If you have > a loop-free topology, all ports should be active. > Well, as I understand, in my case, STP should be enabled mainly on TAP-interfaces as it would eliminate the scenario where, for an example, ARP-requests from 192.168.1.1 for 192.168.3.1 reach 192.168.2.1. Have I understood it correctly? > ASCII art time! What's your topology? > Well, let's try ;) The machines stand like this: 192.168.8.15/24 - GW/NAT - 192.168.1/24 || 192.168.8.16/24 == 192.168.8/24 == == - GW/NAT - || 192.168.2/24 192.168.8.17/24 - GW/NAT - 192.168.3/24 -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/enabling-if_bridge-STP-tf4954594.html#a14189511 Sent from the freebsd-questions mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"