Re: enabling if_bridge STP

2007-12-07 Thread Silver Salonen
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 c

Re: enabling if_bridge STP

2007-12-06 Thread RW
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 > bridge

Re: enabling if_bridge STP

2007-12-06 Thread Nikos Vassiliadis
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 b

Re: enabling if_bridge STP

2007-12-06 Thread Silver Salonen
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

Re: enabling if_bridge STP

2007-12-06 Thread Nikos Vassiliadis
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 s

Re: enabling if_bridge STP

2007-12-06 Thread Silver Salonen
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

Re: enabling if_bridge STP

2007-12-06 Thread Nikos Vassiliadis
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

Re: enabling if_bridge STP

2007-12-06 Thread Atrox
y ;) 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/enablin

Re: enabling if_bridge STP

2007-12-06 Thread Nikos Vassiliadis
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.

enabling if_bridge STP

2007-12-06 Thread Atrox
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 mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ freebsd