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 ? So I did a quick test and it did seem to work for the simple case. However there may be other routes connected to eth0 than just the default route so one have to scan the whole route table. There is also the another problem, now the I/F is named br0 and all config/status ops related to eth0 must be changed to use br0 instead. The routing daemon(Quagga) also needs to update its config to use br0 instead. All in all, using br0 instead of eth0 works on a technical level but all apps dealing with routes and interfaces needs to be updated and this is not trivial nor wanted. Allowing eth0 be used as I suggested would really help in these configurations. Would such a change be welcomed and is it hard to impl. ? Jocke _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
