From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <001701c5de02$7f634440$6502a8c0@tim> From: "Tim Keupen" Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 11:04:32 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0014_01C5DE0A.DF570AF0" Subject: [Bridge] device eth0 is already a member of a bridge; can't enslave it to bridge Net6 List-Id: Linux Ethernet Bridging List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: bridge@lists.osdl.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format... ------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C5DE0A.DF570AF0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Hello, I am working on Network-Simulation (VNUML). Our simulator uses linux bridgi= ng to connect the UMLs. So there is one problem: The example is the following: There are two hosts simulating one big net. The two hosts have connection over the external nets Net3 and Net6 (see htt= p://www.uni-koblenz.de/~timbub/verteilteSim3.GIF), but in fact there is onl= y one physical connection between the host: connected through a switch an e= ach host has one interface card eth0. (so normaly you should bind the ip ad= resses related Net3 and to Net6 to the eth0 and it already is part of the t= wo nets - even if there is one phsical connection) So my virtual nets are implemented by linux bridges. But if I now connect t= he physical interface eth0 to the bridge Net3 and then to Net6 the followin= g error occurs: "device eth0 is already a member of a bridge; can't enslave= it to bridge Net6"=20 Is this a bug or a feature? Why is it not allowed to bind an Interface to t= wo different bridges?=20 Is there a workaround for this issue? Problem:=20 UML1 ---- bridge1 \ eth0=20=20 UML2 ---- bridge2 / Workaround?: UML1 ---- bridge1 \ bridge3 ---- eth0 UML2 ---- bridge2 / UML1 \ bridge1 ---- eth0 UML2 / Thanks for your help Tim Keupen ------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C5DE0A.DF570AF0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline

Hello,

I am working on Network-Simulation (VNUML)= . Our=20 simulator uses linux bridging to connect the UMLs.

So there is one problem:

The example is the following: There are tw= o hosts=20 simulating one big net.

The two hosts have connection over the ext= ernal=20 nets Net3 and Net6 (see http://www.uni= -koblenz.de/~timbub/verteilteSim3.GIF),=20 but in fact there is only one physical connection between the host: connect= ed=20 through a switch an each host has one interface card eth0. (so normaly you= =20 should bind the ip adresses related Net3 and to Net6 to the eth0 and it alr= eady=20 is part of the two nets - even if there is one phsical connection)

So my virtual nets are implemented by linu= x=20 bridges. But if I now connect the physical interface eth0 to the bridge Net= 3 and=20 then to Net6 the following error occurs:=20 "device eth0 is already a me= mber of a=20 bridge; can't enslave it to bridge Net6"

Is this a bug or a feature? Why is it not allowed to bind an Interface= to=20 two different bridges?

Is there a workaround for this issue?

Problem:

UML1 ---- bridge1 \

= &nb= sp; =20 eth0

UML2 ---- bridge2 /

Workaround?:

UML1 ---- bridge1 \

= &nb= sp; =20 bridge3 ---- eth0

UML2 ---- bridge2 /

UML1 \

= bridge1=20 ---- eth0

UML2 /

Thanks for your help

Tim Keupen

------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C5DE0A.DF570AF0--