I've got a question about STP/RSTP (it applies to both, but I'll just say STP). If I connect several switches and the STP algorithm eventually creates a loop-free environment, then how can a single new switch cause a loop?

Let's look at an example scenario: Let's say I have 50 switches, and a user buys a cheap switch without STP (or an attacker turns it off), and connects two ports on the cheap switch to each other (creating a loop). If this cheap switch is then connected to a single port on one of my switches (this port is on Switch 1, and it has PortFast but not BPDU Guard enabled), and the cheap switch starts sending broadcast frames, those broadcast frames enter my switched network, which is a loop-free environment. So how can they cause a loop? The frames must eventually terminate on one of my switches (because STP creates a single logical path for frames), so they can't circle around from the last switch that they reach (Switch 50) to the first switch (Switch 1) through which they initially entered my switched environment.

The only answer I could come up with is that they can't cause a loop, but they can take down the network. They do it in 2 ways:

  1. They drown out all traffic, so no other frames can be forwarded, because the rogue, cheap switch's broadcast frames take up all of the available bandwidth.

  2. Because the rogue switch's user frames take up all available bandwidth, both all other user frames and the BPDU frames of my switches as well get drowned out. This includes the BPDU Hellos, so eventually the Max Age timer expires, and the switches must recalculate STP. While the STP calculations are going on, all user frames (including the broadcast frames of the rogue, cheap switch) are filtered. While the STP calculation is going on, they still keep trying to enter my switched environment, and after the STP calculation is done, they can do so a second, third, etc. time, taking down the network again.

Or is it the case that the switches' CPUs get so busy, they don't even have an opportunity to keep track of the Max Age timer's expiry? If that's true, then the only answer is 1).

Can someone please help me understand this? Is there actually a way to create a loop in an STP-enabled environment, or is the harm done in the 2 ways I describe?

Have a nice weekend. Attila

  • 1
    STP has a maximum diameter (7 unless you've messed with the defaults) It's possible to create a loop STP cannot see.
    – Ricky
    Commented Mar 26, 2023 at 16:25
  • So if the cable is too long between two switches, a port which should be in Blocking state can be in Forwarding state? Or how did you mean that?
    – Attila M
    Commented Mar 26, 2023 at 18:31
  • 1
    No. STP distance is the number of switches in a ring.
    – Ricky
    Commented Mar 26, 2023 at 22:34
  • Ring? You mean, if you daisy chain them?
    – Attila M
    Commented Mar 26, 2023 at 23:10
  • Yes RING. A string (daisy chain) of devices isn't a loop. A-B-C isn't a loop. A-B-C-A is a loop (ring). The entire point of STP is so you can build redundant paths in the network. In the ABCA setup, a link connecting any two switches can fail without partitioning the network. Many people use STP to deal with the rare, accidental loop where someone plugging things up wrong.
    – Ricky
    Commented Mar 27, 2023 at 14:03

2 Answers 2


a user buys a cheap switch without STP (or an attacker turns it off), and connects two ports on the cheap switch to each other (creating a loop)

This is the bane of any network admin's job. ("The Stupid User"™) This is a situation standard spanning-tree will not detect. Some vendors will detect this as a "self-looped port" -- when the switch receives its own BPDU on the same port. The network will see that BPDU because the unmanaged switch will forward that broadcast frame to every other port. When it's sent on the looped pair, it comes back on the other side, thus appearing as two new received broadcasts that will flooded to every other port. (i.e. the uplink port, as well as the looped pair again.) So the network sent a single broadcast BPDU, and it came back twice.

(It'll actually continuously come back as it keeps crossing the looped ports. This is the "broadcast storm" part of the problem. Most managed switches have some level of storm suppression -- all the way up to turning the port off. Unmanaged switches rarely have any such logic.)


STP bridges can only detect loops by receiving BPDUs. Any switch not participating in STP and not forwarding BPDUs (forwarding them violates IEEE 802.1D/Q) can create loops that go undetected, subsequently causing a broadcast storm and bringing down the network.

BPDU guard doesn't help as no BPDUs enter the switch on the interface facing the loop.

Simply put: for STP/RSTP/MSTP to work correctly, all switches need to participate. Cheap switches that do forward BPDUs (actually violating IEEE standards) can be tolerated, but they might be blocked completely when participating in a loop.

There are other mechanisms that may be able to deal with or at least mitigate remote loops: commonly some proprietary loop detection sends probe frames and when they are received back, the interface is disabled. Broadcast frequency or bandwidth limitation contain a broadcast storm somewhat: the looped broadcasts still drown out desired broadcasts (like ARP) but unicast is only impacted marginally.

If you fear that users connect unauthorized equipment you should consider a) establishing an organizational policy to prohibit that and b) enabling appropriate detection or access methods on the switch, e.g. limit end ports to a single MAC addresses, MAC whitelisting, or 802.1X.

  • If you aren't implementing 802.1D, then it's not a violation to forward BPD's. That's the behavior of the now defunct "hub". Simple unmanaged switches forward everything they see. Yes, some are broken and will eat (block) STP BPDU's.
    – Ricky
    Commented Mar 26, 2023 at 16:22
  • But how is the loop created if the non-STP speaking cheap switch connects to only 1 interface on one of my switches? Doesn't the cheap switch's broadcast frames just go from the beginning of the logical, loop-free path, to the end? It can't force a Blocking port on one of my switches into a Forwarding state, thereby creating a loop.
    – Attila M
    Commented Mar 26, 2023 at 18:04
  • @Ricky 802.1Q (former 802.1D) is only for bridges.
    – Zac67
    Commented Mar 26, 2023 at 18:10
  • @AttilaM Connecting an unmanaged switch properly doesn't cause a loop, but when two of its ports are connected together, there's a loop that STP cannot detect.
    – Zac67
    Commented Mar 26, 2023 at 18:11
  • @Zac67 So all of the ports remain in their original Blocking/Forwarding state, the frames don't go around in a loop, and the network is brought down by the rogue switch's frames taking up all the bandwidth?
    – Attila M
    Commented Mar 26, 2023 at 18:13

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.