Nicolas de Pesloüan <nicolas.2p.debian@xxxxxxx> wrote on 2010/03/26 22:35:40: > 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 ? Thanks, I will play with this after the week end. _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
