[nycbug-talk] Can RTSP and dumb switches coexist?

Jonathan Stewart jonathan at kc8onw.net
Thu Oct 18 16:06:06 EDT 2007

Alex Pilosov wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 jonathan at kc8onw.net wrote:
>> On Thu, October 18, 2007 2:10 am, Alex Pilosov wrote:
>>> a) I suppose you mean RSTP (rapid spanning tree protocol). RTSP is voip
>>> blah.
>> Yep, don't know how I did that one.
>>> b) dumb switches *must* comply with 802.1d (the STP protocol) anyway. RSTP
>>> is backward compatible (theoretically), and it should (theoretically) work
>>> fine, with loops or without.
>> This is good enough for me for the time being, the "RSTP switch(es)"
>> would actually be one or two BSD systems and it would be a simple ring
>> network just in case a wire is cut by a truck rolling through the area
>> or someone knocks a plug loose etc.  Iraq is a crazy place to run a
>> satellite internet access network and I'm just trying to avoid people
>> waking me up all the time.  If something goes wrong with RSTP I can also
>> just yank the redundant link and not worry about it.
> if you already have pc routers, why not use them as proper freaking 
> routers?! it is going to be so much better supported than bridging.

My current network layout is pretty much

SAT modem ->My "server" AKA BSD desktop -> bunch of dumb 8 port switches
daisy chained

I was thinking about dropping another NIC into my server bridging the
ports and making a full loop rather than just a chain of switches in
case part of the loop gets cut.  I said "RSTP switch(es)" because for
some reason I was thinking I would need a second box but I realized I
only *need* one to do it this way.


More information about the talk mailing list