On Thursday 06 December 2007 17:00, Nikos Vassiliadis wrote:
On Thursday 06 December 2007 15:37:21 Silver Salonen wrote:
In my case there's a straight connection between bridge1
and bridge2 too, so that they don't have to communicate through
root-bridge.
Yes, but that also can create a
cost 55 disabled
member: sk0 flags=7LEARNING,DISCOVER,STP
port 1 priority 128 path cost 55 disabled
=
Am I doing smth wrong?
--
Silver
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/enabling-if_bridge-STP-tf4954594.html#a14188023
Sent from the freebsd-questions
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?
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.
|| 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
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
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
On Thursday 06 December 2007 13:31:38 Silver Salonen wrote:
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
On Thursday 06 December 2007 15:01, Nikos Vassiliadis wrote:
On Thursday 06 December 2007 13:31:38 Silver Salonen wrote:
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
On Thursday 06 December 2007 15:37:21 Silver Salonen wrote:
Is all the traffic pass through the root-bridge in this case, so that if
bridge1 wants to talk to bridge2, it has to go through root-bridge and
not straight?
Yes, they'll have to go through the root-bridge. STP will create a
tree by
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 15:37:21 +0200
Silver Salonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is all the traffic pass through the root-bridge in this case, so that
if bridge1 wants to talk to bridge2, it has to go through root-bridge
and not straight? In my case there's a straight connection between
bridge1 and
10 matches
Mail list logo
