[Bridge] 802.1D/Linux STP issue

Stephen Hemminger shemminger at osdl.org
Wed Sep 13 18:06:19 PDT 2006


On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:58:49 -0700
Brian Braunstein <brian at bristyle.com> wrote:

> hi stephen and tony,
> 
> i have been in contact with both of you and i figured it would make 
> sense to get you to in contact on this issue, so here's the story:
> 
> stephen is the maintainer of the linux spanning tree bridging code, an 
> implementation of 802.1D-1998 that has very wide spread use.
> 
> tony is the chair of the IEEE802.1 working group.
> 
> i am trying to get my patch submitted in the linux kernel to fix a bug 
> in the way STP behaves.  stephen and i discovered that the flaw is 
> actually in the IEEE802.1D-1998 spec, and that the linux implementation 
> was merely following this.  i contacted tony to try to see if we can get 
> an update to the 802.1D-1998 spec, as this is what is implemented in the 
> linux kernel, but tony said that the 1998 standard is obsolete, will not 
> be updated,  and that the 2004 RSTP spec should be used.
> 
> so here's a review of what i've come across:
> 
> first lets start with the bug in the 802.1D-1998 spec
> 
> 1998 - 8.6.2.2 Record Configuration Information - Use
>     you will notice that if the path cost ever goes up and everything 
> else is held constant, the BPDU will be dropped and the network not 
> react to the change, and the dropping of the BPDUs will make it seem 
> like the link is down.
> 
> now lets look at the equivalent section in the 8021.D-2004 spec:
> 
> 2004 - 17.6 Priority vector calculations
> 
>     as you can see here, this bug has been fixed, because the last 
> condition takes care of the problem, if the config message is received 
> from the same designated bridge and designated port, then the config 
> message is processed. so path cost increases will be recorded and 
> reacted to.
> 
> 
> the issue is whether or not the linux kernel should go with the 1998 or 
> 2004 spec.  i would assume that the goal is to make the linux 
> implmentation a functional implementation of the original STP, not a 
> complete rewrite to conform to all of RSTP, so lets look at what the new 
> standard says for normal legacy STP, to see if the bug is fixed there as 
> well:
> 
> 2004 - 17.4 STP compatibility
> 
>     this section seems to say that an RSTP bridge  will revert to STP as 
> defined in section 8.  so then we go to section 8...
> 
> 2004 - 8 Spanning tree algorithm protocol
>   
>     this one then refers to 802.1D-1998 for the STP spec, but also says 
> that it is obsolete and RSTP should be used
> 
> so this is a bit confusing.  section 17.4 says use STP to interoperate 
> with legacy bridges, then section 8 either says use the 1998 spec, or 
> don't use STP at all, but if bugs in the 1998 spec cannot be correct, 
> what are we to do with the linux code?  i can write the patch to 
> implement the new algorithm from 2004-17.6 to replace the algorithm from 
> 1998-8.6.2.2.
> 
> thanks for you help guys,
> hopefully we can get this bug fixed up soon, you both have been great 
> about timely responses and it is much appreciated.
> 
> Brian Braunstein
> 858.245.0434


I have no problem fixing the code to be spec noncompliant, there
are several case where we implement the "right thing" rather than
the "standard way". I just want to make sure any such changes don't
have unintended consequences.



More information about the Bridge mailing list