Joakim Tjernlund a écrit : > > Nicolas de Pesloüan <nicolas.2p.debian@xxxxxxx> wrote on 2010/03/26 21:39:33: > >> From: Nicolas de Pesloüan <nicolas.2p.debian@xxxxxxx> >> To: Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernlund@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Date: 2010/03/26 21:39 >> Subject: Re: IP address on physcial interface instead of bridge interface? >> >> Joakim Tjernlund wrote: >> >>> Figure a small picture will help so here it is: >>> >>> Before adding eth0 to br0: >>> eth0 br0 >>> | >>> | >>> HW controller >>> >>> after adding eth0 to br0: >>> eth0 >>> \ >>> \ >>> br0 >>> / >>> / >>> HW controller >> I don't understand your ascii art. What is HW controller ? eth0 is an hardware >> controller !? >> >> Nicolas. > > eth0 is the I/F IP stack will see/use. HW controller is the ethernet HW controller, > the PCI HW if you like. I tested the following setup: # eth0 setup: ip addr add $IP dev eth0 ip link set up dev eth0 ip route add default via $DEF_ROUTE # bridge setup: brctl addbr br0 brctl setfd br0 0 Then I tested the following migration sequence to move the IP addresse to br0: ip addr add $IP dev br0 ip link set up dev br0 brctl addif br0 eth0 ip addr del $IP dev eth0 ip route add default via $DEF_ROUTE Thanks to "brctl setfd br0 0", this migration cause no trouble to active connections. So I cannot find a good reason to try and use eth0 as the "main" bridge interface. Do you have a process really linked to eth0 ? Nicolas. _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
