Most of the issues with STP are dealt with via 802.1w (rapid spanning tree)
On Sep 11, 2011, at 9:15 AM, Joseph Hardeman wrote: > Hey Everyone, > > So I can do the failover and yes all of the switches are managed. I did see > where to setup the LAGG on the pfSense system. I have to deconfigure the two > nics I want to use and then set them up in failover mode I think. On the > switch side, I was using 2 separate switches with rapid spanning tree on > their uplink ports and ports to the pfSense system to assist in fast > failover. I will give it a shot on Monday and see how it goes. > > Thanks. > > Joe > > -----Original Message----- > From: list-boun...@lists.pfsense.org [mailto:list-boun...@lists.pfsense.org] > On Behalf Of Chris Buechler > Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 1:04 AM > To: pfSense support and discussion > Subject: Re: [pfSense] NIC Failover > > On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 12:46 AM, Austin G. Smith <aus...@digitalcompass.com> > wrote: >> I have had issues with stp on the firewall in this type setup previously. >> Mileage may vary for others.. >> > > If you're bridging, yeah that can be a concern depending on your config. > Failover lagg without bridging won't cause any issues with STP though. May > see switches on occasion that have an issue with a MAC quickly moving from > one port to another related to its CAM table, or sometimes with security > features on the switch, but that's pretty unusual with typical switch > configs. And usually in that scenario you're going to be on two diff switches > anyway with failover lagg. > _______________________________________________ > List mailing list > List@lists.pfsense.org > http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list > _______________________________________________ > List mailing list > List@lists.pfsense.org > http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list _______________________________________________ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
