Talk:Spanning Tree Protocol/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:33, 24 November 2024

Latest revision as of 17:12, 2 April 2025

Line 1:

{{Automatic archive navigator}}

== Backwards Merge==

I also think this should be merged with STP <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jishnua|Jishnua]] ([[User talk:Jishnua#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jishnua|contribs]]) 13:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)</small>

It was stated that STP was from the 802.1w conference while RSTP was from the 802.1d conference. This is actually backwards. RSTP is 802.1w and STP 802.1d. Check for yourself, Cisco Press CCNA ICND book for the 640-811 exam. pg. 36.

:No idea what you're blabbering about. Don't polute this talk page with irrelevant nonsense.

::He's correct, your polluting by posting about a subject you don't know about <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Charfles|Charfles]] ([[User talk:Charfles|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Charfles|contribs]]) 06:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

:please sign your comment, makes discussion easier ;-)

:In the current state, the articles could be merged... However, i had the idea to extend the RSTP en MSTP articles some day (or hoping someone else would do it). RSTP and MSTP are compatible and extensions of STP indeed, some parts of the text on protocol operations would be the same, or refer to the other article; however, an more extended description of the RSTP en MSTP protocol operation and properties would make de STP article lengthy, and maybe it IS usefull to have some "stand alone" description of the protocols. --[[User:LimoWreck|LimoWreck]] 00:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

:I agree! Sergio <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/200.27.224.121|200.27.224.121]] ([[User talk:200.27.224.121#top|talk]]) 20:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)</small>

:Yes, Do it!! <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/64.132.18.129|64.132.18.129]] ([[User talk:64.132.18.129#top|talk]]) 19:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)</small>

:Yeah, I had no idea what is was...please add it, it fits well. Harry Cavallero <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:R3drum|R3drum]] ([[User talk:R3drum#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/R3drum|contribs]]) 04:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)</small>

:Most people will be looking for information on Spanning Tree, without realizing that in most network RSTP is the default version of spanning tree that is used. Both MSTP and RSPT should be merged into this article as the concept are very similar, and are evolutions on the basic STP protocol. By merging them together the reader will have the benefit of not only understanding the RSTP protocol, but the foundation of the protocol, and all related issues to do with it. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Sal Veya|Sal Veya]] ([[User talk:Sal Veya#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Sal Veya|contribs]]) 21:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)</small>

:Don't merge them - the mian article can explian the progression and the individual articles can provide more detail. Everyone is capable of clicking on the other pages. [[User:195.195.0.77|195.195.0.77]] 14:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

:The RSTP page IMHO is so short and mostly people will be looking for STP so I think they should be merged and if someday the RSTP section becomes so huge that it deserves individual article, people will call for that --[[User:krampo|krampo]] 14:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

:Don't merge them, please. Like another user above, I came here looking for RSTP specifically, & I wasn't even sure of its expansion. I think it deserves a page of its own. --[[User:Arungoodboy|Arungoodboy]] 05:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::[[Rapid Spanning Tree Protocol]] redirects to this article. ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 02:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

== Algorhymes rock! ==

Please add more specifications like this. Very nice. =) <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/212.98.173.72|212.98.173.72]] ([[User talk:212.98.173.72#top|talk]]) 09:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)</small>

:STP was designed to monitor and control the Layer2 Network, it has different variations like RSTP,MSTP and PVST+. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.227.180.247|70.227.180.247]] ([[User talk:70.227.180.247#top|talk]]) 18:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)</small>

:yes for my career prospectus, please add RSTP, MSTP <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/202.91.73.214|202.91.73.214]] ([[User talk:202.91.73.214#top|talk]]) 19:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)</small>

:yet another vote - merge the 3. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/206.54.196.86|206.54.196.86]] ([[User talk:206.54.196.86#top|talk]]) 03:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)</small>

== RSTP as it's own ==

I am reading a paper and didn't know what '''RSTP''' was, so I fed it into wikipedia search. Luckily, there is only 1 "RSTP" acronym so far as the "RSTP" page points here as well. RSTP had a 100% hit while '''Rapid Spanning Tree Protocol''' came in 2nd at 2.9%. I ''found my answer right there in the search results'' and immediately knew "''oh, that's what RSTP''" stands for. If it was hidden away in the Spanning Tree Protocol page... I don't think I would have found it as easily! ("Spanning Tree" has a 1.1% search result). I vote to keep the separate page and not merge, it is good to be categorized in "Network protocols" though. --[[User:BrianWiese|BrianWiese]] 19:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

== bad choices ==

do real spanning tree implementations have stuff built in to prevent bad choices (e.g. using a 100 megabit link that some luser connected by plugging a patch cable between two wallports when a gigabit one is availible) or to prevent massive performance changes if a dead switch is replaced? [[User:Plugwash|Plugwash]] 17:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

== Problems in Article ==

In the opening paragraph of the article there is a sentence that doesn't make sense to me. However, I don't know enough about the topic to really correct it, so I'm hoping that by noting it here, somebody else can make the fix. The part I'm confused by is:<blockquote>First, there would be a broadcast storm caused by broadcast packets looping. <b>Second, the traditional source-based ___location system used by switches to operate correctly.</B> The result of this would be to cripple the network.</blockquote>The middle sentence is incomplete; it seems to be missing something. It's just a dangling subject, without an action. Anyone want to clue me in? If someone can give me the technical info I'll rewrite it, but I don't understand STP well enough to know what's being meant here. --[[User:Kadin2048|Kadin2048]] 21:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

:The reference to broadcast storms in the article is arguably incorrect. The LAN is flooded as a result of bridge loops, but a "broadcast storm" is defined by IETF and Cisco as network flooding as a result of an incorrect broadcast packet. So mentioning it here suggests that the problem is more restrictive than it is, i.e., if you avoid broadcasting you won't have the problem. But that's not the case - the flooding occurs whether you have broadcasting or not. The incorrectness of the mac-address-table will also occur, but since that's a problem internal to the bridges and not likely to be understandable to a lay reader without considerable explanation, I think the introduction should restrict itself to flooding as the big problem with bridge loops. [[User:Ngriffeth|Ngriffeth]] ([[User talk:Ngriffeth|talk]]) 15:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

::At some point the article was changed to ues [[broadcast radiation]] terminology. ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 02:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

==Merge (continued)==

Since all of the articles discuss a form of the STP algorithm, they should be merged under one twiki page. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Ftmkx|Ftmkx]] ([[User talk:Ftmkx#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ftmkx|contribs]]) 22:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)</small>

:[[Rapid Spanning Tree Protocol]] was merged. We still have a separate [[Multiple Spanning Tree Protocol]] article. ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 02:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

==Duplicated text==

There seems to be part of the text duplicated in the first paragraph:

"{{quote|The spanning tree network protocol provides a loop free topology for any bridged LAN. The Spanning Tree Protocol, which is also referred to as STP, is defined in the IEEE Standard 802.1D. [...]

STP is used in switched networks to prevent loops, and has been standardized by IEEE 802.1D.}}

"

The last sentence is already completely included in the first two.

Could it be removed ?

[[User:MJost|MJost]] 14:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

:Has been done already. [[User:Mcicogni|Mauro Cicognini]] 12:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

== Backwards ==

It was stated that STP was from the 802.1w conference while RSTP was from the 802.1d conference. This is actually backwards. RSTP is 802.1w and STP 802.1d. Check for yourself, Cisco Press CCNA ICND book for the 640-811 exam. pg. 36. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/143.84.43.2|143.84.43.2]] ([[User talk:143.84.43.2#top|talk]]) 20:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)</small>

:No idea what you're blabbering about. Don't polute this talk page with irrelevant nonsense.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:LimoWreck|LimoWreck]] ([[User talk:LimoWreck#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/LimoWreck|contribs]]) 19:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)</small>

::He's correct, your polluting by posting about a subject you don't know about <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Charfles|Charfles]] ([[User talk:Charfles|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Charfles|contribs]]) 06:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

== The Poem ==

Is it just me, or do the links mess up the poem? I know wikifying stuff is the way, it just seems so out of place in the poem. [[User:Nichlas|Nichlas]] 15:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

== Merge (BPDU) ==

Line 25 ⟶ 80:

::It should be merged and redirected. It is thrown out of context in a standalone article. [[User:Kremso|Kremso]] 06:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

:I think that the BPDU article should be moved into the BPDU secion of the STP article due to the importance that BPDU's have in the Spanning Tree process. It is an integral part and having it in the STP article would be very beneficial.<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/194.221.133.226|194.221.133.226]] ([[User talk:194.221.133.226#top|talk]]) 11:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)</small>

(New comment, the above is anon) :Definitely merge, BPDU's don't exist outside of STP and as already mentioned are integral in the protocol. [[User:Ngriffeth|Ngriffeth]] 14:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

:Let's just go ahead and merge it, and provide a redirect on the old BPDU page... [[User:Mcicogni|Mauro Cicognini]] 12:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

::... done. [[User:Mcicogni|Mauro Cicognini]] 13:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

== Explaining paragraph move from end of introduction to "evolution" ==

Line 65 ⟶ 120:

[[User:Triddle|Triddle]] 00:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

== bad choices RSTP==

do real spanning tree implementations have stuff built in to prevent bad choices (e.g. using a 100 megabit link that some luser connected by plugging a patch cable between two wallports when a gigabit one is availible) or to prevent massive performance changes if a dead switch is replaced? [[User:Plugwash|Plugwash]] 17:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I was loking for STP concerning Layer 2 and was not aware of something like Rapid STP. The search brought me sraight to RSTP which proved to be an enlightenment and motivation to further learn the subject.

[[Special:Contributions/117.199.192.108|117.199.192.108]] ([[User talk:117.199.192.108|talk]]) 19:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)yash Pal Jagia

:More instructive and specific than loop-free 2 words alternating or augmenting, if you like call method path with no cycles <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Implements|Implements]] ([[User talk:Implements|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Implements|contribs]]) 14:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Not an OSI protocol ==

Line 115 ⟶ 167:

{{Reflist-talk}}

== Explicit definition of "Segments" ==

=== STP Port Status Times ===

I think it might be useful to add a description of what "segments" on an ethernet network are. Nowadays, I think of things in terms of fully switched networks - whereas a network "segment" is a shared medium (thin ethernet over coax; twisted pair on an old hub) with many nodes and bridges on it. If you do not have a good understanding of this concept it's hard to grok the point of Designated ports.

It doesn't mention that the time each port stays in each status for. Blocking 20sec, Listening 15sec, Learning 20sec. 09:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/220.244.105.200|220.244.105.200]] ([[User talk:220.244.105.200|talk]]) </span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Hmm, do dumb switches forward spanning-tree frames? If so, I guess a dumb switch would be considered a segment in this context.

If a bit about dumb switches is added, it would be prudent to add a note of caution. I've definitely seen cases where a dumb switch, or perhaps an intelligent switch that had STP disabled, has caused a broadcast storm when dually linked to a LAN running STP. [[User:Danpritts]] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 19:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:I have added links to [[network segment]]. I have also replaced occurrences of ''LAN segment'' with ''network segment''. ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 02:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

== STP Port Status Times ==

It doesn't mention that the time each port stays in each status for. Blocking 20sec, Listening 15sec, Learning 20sec. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/220.244.105.200|220.244.105.200]] ([[User talk:220.244.105.200|talk]]) 09:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC) </span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== SSTP: Single Spanning Tree Protocol ==

Line 152 ⟶ 213:

:A MAC address is a 48-bit field. Usually it is represented in number form where in any common notation, the most significant digit is leftmost and the least significant digit is rightmost. The entire number has the significance that is assigned to it on a certain point. For STP it is compared numerically, for identifying an L2 interface it is not. The byte and bit order that is used on Ethernet isn't relevant here, STPs are specified by IEEE 802.'''1'''. --[[User:Zac67|Zac67]] ([[User talk:Zac67|talk]]) 21:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

:There's what appears to be a compete explanation in [[Spanning Tree Protocol#Root bridge and the bridge ID]] ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 14:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

== Explicit definition of "Segments" ==

I think it might be useful to add a description of what "segments" on an ethernet network are. Nowadays, I think of things in terms of fully switched networks - whereas a network "segment" is a shared medium (thin ethernet over coax; twisted pair on an old hub) with many nodes and bridges on it. If you do not have a good understanding of this concept it's hard to grok the point of Designated ports.

Hmm, do dumb switches forward spanning-tree frames? If so, I guess a dumb switch would be considered a segment in this context.

If a bit about dumb switches is added, it would be prudent to add a note of caution. I've definitely seen cases where a dumb switch, or perhaps an intelligent switch that had STP disabled, has caused a broadcast storm when dually linked to a LAN running STP. [[User:Danpritts]] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 19:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:I have added links to [[network segment]]. I have also replaced occurrences of ''LAN segment'' with ''network segment''. ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 02:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

== RSTP as it's own ==

I am reading a paper and didn't know what '''RSTP''' was, so I fed it into wikipedia search. Luckily, there is only 1 "RSTP" acronym so far as the "RSTP" page points here as well. RSTP had a 100% hit while '''Rapid Spanning Tree Protocol''' came in 2nd at 2.9%. I ''found my answer right there in the search results'' and immediately knew "''oh, that's what RSTP''" stands for. If it was hidden away in the Spanning Tree Protocol page... I don't think I would have found it as easily! ("Spanning Tree" has a 1.1% search result). I vote to keep the separate page and not merge, it is good to be categorized in "Network protocols" though. --[[User:BrianWiese|BrianWiese]] 19:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I also think this should be merged with STP

:remark by [[User:Jishnua]]

:please sign your comment, makes discussion easier ;-)

:In the current state, the articles could be merged... However, i had the idea to extend the RSTP en MSTP articles some day (or hoping someone else would do it). RSTP and MSTP are compatible and extensions of STP indeed, some parts of the text on protocol operations would be the same, or refer to the other article; however, an more extended description of the RSTP en MSTP protocol operation and properties would make de STP article lengthy, and maybe it IS usefull to have some "stand alone" description of the protocols. --[[User:LimoWreck|LimoWreck]] 00:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree!

Sergio

Yes, Do it!!

Yeah, I had no idea what is was...please add it, it fits well.

Harry Cavallero

'''Merge Them'''

Most people will be looking for information on Spanning Tree, without realizing that in most network RSTP is the default version of spanning tree that is used. Both MSTP and RSPT should be merged into this article as the concept are very similar, and are evolutions on the basic STP protocol. By merging them together the reader will have the benefit of not only understanding the RSTP protocol, but the foundation of the protocol, and all related issues to do with it.

Sal Veya

Don't merge them - the mian article can explian the progression and the individual articles can provide more detail. Everyone is capable of clicking on the other pages. [[User:195.195.0.77|195.195.0.77]] 14:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The RSTP page IMHO is so short and mostly people will be looking for STP so I think they should be merged and if someday the RSTP section becomes so huge that it deserves individual article, people will call for that --krampo 14:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't merge them, please. Like another user above, I came here looking for RSTP specifically, & I wasn't even sure of its expansion. I think it deserves a page of its own. --[[User:Arungoodboy|Arungoodboy]] 05:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:[[Rapid Spanning Tree Protocol]] redirects to this article. ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 02:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

== Problems in Article ==

In the opening paragraph of the article there is a sentence that doesn't make sense to me. However, I don't know enough about the topic to really correct it, so I'm hoping that by noting it here, somebody else can make the fix. The part I'm confused by is:<blockquote>First, there would be a broadcast storm caused by broadcast packets looping. <b>Second, the traditional source-based ___location system used by switches to operate correctly.</B> The result of this would be to cripple the network.</blockquote>The middle sentence is incomplete; it seems to be missing something. It's just a dangling subject, without an action. Anyone want to clue me in? If someone can give me the technical info I'll rewrite it, but I don't understand STP well enough to know what's being meant here. --[[User:Kadin2048|Kadin2048]] 21:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

* The reference to broadcast storms in the article is arguably incorrect. The LAN is flooded as a result of bridge loops, but a "broadcast storm" is defined by IETF and Cisco as network flooding as a result of an incorrect broadcast packet. So mentioning it here suggests that the problem is more restrictive than it is, i.e., if you avoid broadcasting you won't have the problem. But that's not the case - the flooding occurs whether you have broadcasting or not. The incorrectness of the mac-address-table will also occur, but since that's a problem internal to the bridges and not likely to be understandable to a lay reader without considerable explanation, I think the introduction should restrict itself to flooding as the big problem with bridge loops. [[User:Ngriffeth|Ngriffeth]] ([[User talk:Ngriffeth|talk]]) 15:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

*:At some point the article was changed to ues [[broadcast radiation]] terminology. ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 02:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

=== The Poem ===

Is it just me, or do the links mess up the poem? I know wikifying stuff is the way, it just seems so out of place in the poem. [[User:Nichlas|Nichlas]] 15:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)