From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Derrik Pates Subject: Re: VIF setup Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:17:41 -0500 Message-ID: <41E89965.4000709@devrandom.net> References: <3b793f1a0501131750210688de@mail.gmail.com> <200501141146.06339.maw48@cl.cam.ac.uk> <41E7D194.1000700@devrandom.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: xen-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: xen-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: "Ronald G. Minnich" Cc: Adam Sulmicki , Mark Williamson , xen-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Kero-Chan List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Ronald G. Minnich wrote: > Am I the only person who sees this as a tad odd? I can't escape thinking > about a real bridge. Seems to me each eth or vif you add to a bridge > should retain its IP and the bridge, basically being a device that does > mac-layer routing, has no IP. No, because the IP(s) assigned to a device cause the device to only accept packets destinde for it; when the IP is 0.0.0.0, the interface goes into promiscuous mode, and so it accepts all packets, whether destined for it or not. Then, the bridge device enslaves all the interfaces, and transports the packets among the participant interfaces. > I guess this is an artifact of how it is implemented? You could say that. -- Derrik Pates demon@devrandom.net ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek. It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt