On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Shawn Delaney <sdelaney@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > In the documentation I’ve seen so far a bridge is created with no IP address > for its enslaved interfaces and optionally with an IP address on the bridge > interface. For example, I create a bridge like so: > > > > brctl addbr br0 > > brctl addif br0 eth0 > > brctl addif br0 eth1 AFAIK, after this packets no longer arrive on the eth0 and eth1 logical interfaces. Incoming packets have a receive interface of br0 (and which bridge port is stored for physdev-in matching). > > > > ifconfig eth0 0.0.0.0 > > ifconfig eth1 0.0.0.0 > > ifconfig br0 10.0.0.10 netmask 255.255.0.0 > > > > > > This works fine. However if I do the following: > > > > ifconfig eth0 10.0.0.10 netmask 255.255.0.0 > > ifconfig eth1 10.1.0.10 netmask 255.255.0.0 > > ifconfig br0 0.0.0.0 > > > > the bridge gets created but I can’t ping the IP addresses of the enslaved > interfaces. With the above configuration I am assuming that the enslaved > interfaces still behave independently of the bridge, can be assigned IP > addresses and participate in routes. My question is whether this is > supported and if I should expect it to work. If so, can someone point me to > an example? > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bridge mailing list > Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge > _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
