Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Al Boldi wrote: > > All modes work fine when the bond is not part of the bridge. > > Odd.. > > > The message stops when one of the bonded devs like eth1 is downed. > > Naturally if the cause is what I described: bonding without proper support > from the switch, causing packets to loop back on the other interfaces in > the bond. TLB mode doesn't need any switch support, yet the message persists when part of the bridge. Does this mean that the kernel bridge does not support bonding? > > Also, what's the idea of this tight IP to devMAC relationship? > > Shouldn't the IP be on a different level of abstraction from the lower > > dev abstraction and then linked via some map? > > No idea what "tight IP to devMAC relationship" you are talking about. The > two are pretty separate from each other. Should an IP be bound to a dev? > The local IP stack will get somewhat upset if it receives IP packets with > a source IP matching one of it's own interfaces, as this indicates > something is wrong in the network either an IP conflict or packets being > looped back to the sender host. Ping from the local host to a non-existent IP reproduces the message. Can the bridge handle broadcasts looping back? -- Al - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
