From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 18 08:50:38 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6366D16A40F; Thu, 18 Jan 2007 08:50:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net) Received: from transport.cksoft.de (transport.cksoft.de [62.111.66.27]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C30A13C45B; Thu, 18 Jan 2007 08:50:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net) Received: from transport.cksoft.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by transport.cksoft.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C70021FFE19; Thu, 18 Jan 2007 09:25:10 +0100 (CET) Received: by transport.cksoft.de (Postfix, from userid 66) id 9119A1FFDFC; Thu, 18 Jan 2007 09:25:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net (maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net [10.111.66.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.int.zabbadoz.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DCD7444885; Thu, 18 Jan 2007 08:24:15 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 08:24:14 +0000 (UTC) From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" X-X-Sender: bz@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net To: Andrew Thompson In-Reply-To: <20070118035748.GE12548@heff.fud.org.nz> Message-ID: <20070118082139.W82671@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> References: <20070118035748.GE12548@heff.fud.org.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS cksoft-s20020300-20031204bz on transport.cksoft.de Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: MFC rstp X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 08:50:38 -0000 On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, Andrew Thompson wrote: Hi, > I have a patch here to MFC the rstp code to RELENG_6. It should be all > fine and dandy as for API but will cause the default spanning tree > version to change from stp to rstp. > > Is it ok to change the protocol version for the STABLE users (rstp is > backwards compatable with stp) or should it still default to stp and > require the OP to enable rstp. > > Any opinions? I think you should leave stp as default and have the user configure rstp if (s)he thinks (s)he needs it. -- Bjoern A. Zeeb bzeeb at Zabbadoz dot NeT