On Thursday 06 December 2007 13:21, Nikos Vassiliadis wrote: > On Thursday 06 December 2007 12:20:18 Atrox wrote: > > 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? > > It sounds like you want to isolate the ethernets, not bridge them. > Bridging is not what you need, if I have understood correctly. > > You want to keep ARP and broadcasts to the relevant boxes, right? > You have to use VLANs on your switch to achieve this, not bridging.
Actually the final target is to connect all the 3 LANs over VPN, so that they can browse eachother networks etc. When I did it, I could see duplicate packets looping through all bridges, so I thought I'd bring in STP. That's what it's for, right? -- Silver _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"