enabling if_bridge STP

[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 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 sounds like you want to isolate the ethernets, not bridge them.
> > > Bridging is not what you need, if I have understood correctly.
> > >
> > > You want to keep ARP and broadcasts to the relevant boxes, right?
> > > You have to use VLANs on your switch to achieve this, not bridging.
> >
> > Actually the final target is to connect all the 3 LANs over VPN, so that
> > they can browse eachother networks etc. When I did it, I could see
> > duplicate packets looping through all bridges, so I thought I'd bring in
> > STP. That's what it's for, right?
> 
> Not really, STP must be used/needed in a dynamic environment to
> eliminate loops. Your environment doesn't seem dynamic to me. You
> can create a loop-free topology like this:
> 
> http://users.teledomenet.gr/nvass/topology.png
> 
> 1) 10.0.0.0/24 is the shared network.
> 2) bridge1 bridges eth0 and tap0 which is the VPN to the root-bridge.
> 3) bridge2 bridges eth0 and tap0 which is the VPN to the root-bridge.
> 4) root-bridge bridges eth0, tap0 and tap1.

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 
bridge2 too, so that they don't have to communicate through root-bridge.

-- 
Silver