[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [PATCH] (3/4) bridge linkstate handling

To: <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] (3/4) bridge linkstate handling
From: "Eble, Dan" <DanE@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 11:11:02 -0400
Cc: "Stephen Hemminger" <shemminger@xxxxxxxx>, <bridge@xxxxxxxx>, <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcR1eOl+HPLL9ObYQ42Fvp9b95BGsAAAuoJQ
Thread-topic: [PATCH] (3/4) bridge linkstate handling
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jamal [mailto:hadi@xxxxxxxxxx] 
> On Thu, 2004-07-29 at 09:24, Eble, Dan wrote:
> > Even if STP were implemented in user space, this part 
> should be done in
> > the kernel to make sure that there is no window of time for 
> a packet to
> > be received or transmitted after the link state changes.  
> Your main problem there would be STP convergence time. Transfering the
> packet to user space and reacting should be several factors 
> of magnitude
> faster than it takes STP to converge.
> The STP state should stay in the kernel. Control of it and 
> BPDU handling
> is what i am suggesting to take out.

Is the time it takes STP to converge really the issue in this case?
When a port loses and then regains carrier, it needs to enter the
Blocking state without delay.  If the carrier state change were handled
by a daemon, the bridge driver would have some time to transmit or
receive packets via that port before the daemon could tell it to block
the port, wouldn't it?

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>