I am glad someone posted this. We have been using rSTP for a while. It prevents network loops and has much lower delays / disruptions than STP.
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 18:11, Jim Thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >> 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 >> <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
