Hi, > Can you please also describe what you try to achieve, and not only your > setup ? > > What are the expected effects ? Sorry, I will. What I am trying to achieve is high availability. The host I'm building this on will be a kvm host with virtual machines which runs the images from a nfsmount. I need to have multiple vlans on this host which are then bridged to the virtual machines. What I want is that if the switch connected to eth0 fails, all traffic will go through eth1. The final setup will be the following: +------+ +------+ | core |---|blade | +-----+ |switch| |switch|---|eth0 | +------+ +------+ | | | |Host | +------+ +------+ | | | core |---|blade |---|eth1 | |switch| |switch| +-----+ +------+ +------+ > Your bonding setup (active-backup) will lead to one port enabled and one > disabled. That's okay with me. I don't need the speed, only the redundancy. I could use alb or tlb but since I'm testing right now active-backup it easier. > Why don't you simply use eth0.101 and eth1.101 as two ports of br101, and > enable stp ? Since the switches that connect to eth0 and eth1 have a crappy stp implementation (its a supermicro blade chassis) it's pain to get it working. Moreover, converging with stp is a bit slow. Bonding will do this in 100ms or faster while stp might take 30 seconds or so. The setup works perfectly as long as I don't use bridging. But I need the bridging to get the network to the virtual machines. Greets, Sander Klein _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
