Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 2010/06/09 18:38:22: > > On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 18:30:17 +0200 > Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernlund@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 2010/06/09 17:23:19: > > > > > > On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 16:46:01 +0200 > > > Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernlund@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > System A: > > > > eth0 has ip 192.168.1.16 > > > > > > > > Then do in system A > > > > brctl addbr br0 > > > > ifconfig br0 192.168.1.18 down > > > > > > > > > > > > From system B I ping 192.168.1.18 > > > > and system A responds! > > > > > > > > Even though interface br0 is down I can still > > > > access system A with 192.168.1.18, this feels > > > > like a bridge bug? > > > > > > > > > > No that is how Linux works. All addresses are property of the > > > system not the interface. > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_model > > > > I see, I know the about the host model but I was surprised it applied > > to interfaces that is down. Does it not make sense to exclude the > > IP address when the I/F is down? > > Responding on a all interfaces all the time does make sense on a multi-homed server > (which was the original Linux use case), but it does on a router. ^^^^^ - Should be "doesn't" I suppose? > There is a configurable value in to control it in Vyatta to handle that. hmm, this "configurable value" makes Linux host model strong or something in between? You have a patch handy for me to look at? > The patch got rejected when submitted upstream because of the developers worries > about breaking existing applications. Strange, how would a new knob, defaulting to off, break existing apps? Jocke _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
