On 06/30/10 02:50, ratheesh k wrote:
Why is it so ?
Independent of your scenario, I'd say that binding the IP to the interface will make it more resilient to the individual interfaces going down. At least in such as all the interfaces would have to go down before the IP would go down.
I have a linux machine with interfaces eth0 (192.168.1.100 ) and eth1 ( 192.168.2.100 ) . . I can connect both eth0 an eth1 to a hardware HUB . How could i do this in linux machine itself using brctl ?
What netmask are your two IPs using, a /24? If they are, then you are actually using two different subnets, and possibly doing something like a bridging router.
Either way, you could bind both IPs to the bridge interface (classic IP alias or "ip add").
With in the Xen context it may be because different things manage various parts of the Xen network differently and having the IP bound in the wrong place might cause a problem if the Xen hypervisor takes something down.
There is also the fact that if a cable gets unplugged from an interface (that is a member of a bridge with at least one other member interface) said interface will go down but the bridge will stay up. In doing so, the IP will go down b/c the interface that it was bound to would go down. Conversely if the IP was bound to the bridge interface, the IP would stay up and usable.
There is also the possibility that if the IP is bound directly to the interface that filtering (EBTables / IPTables w/ Bridged Netfilter option) will not see the traffic.
In some ways, it really depends on the specific use scenario. Grant. . . . -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
