Re: [Bridge] IP address on physcial interface instead of bridge interface?

["Nicolas de Pesloüan" <nicolas.2p.debian@free.fr>]

Joakim Tjernlund a écrit :
> 
> Nicolas de Pesloüan <nicolas.2p.debian@free.fr> wrote on 2010/03/26 21:39:33:
> 
>> From: Nicolas de Pesloüan <nicolas.2p.debian@free.fr>
>> To: Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernlund@transmode.se>
>> Cc: bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org
>> Date: 2010/03/26 21:39
>> Subject: Re: [Bridge] IP address on physcial interface instead of bridge interface?
>>
>> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>>
>>> Figure a small picture will help so here it is:
>>>
>>> Before adding eth0 to br0:
>>> eth0    br0
>>>  |
>>>  |
>>> HW controller
>>>
>>> after adding eth0 to br0:
>>> eth0
>>>   \
>>>    \
>>>      br0
>>>    /
>>>   /
>>> HW controller
>> I don't understand your ascii art. What is HW controller ? eth0 is an hardware
>> controller !?
>>
>>    Nicolas.
> 
> eth0 is the I/F IP stack will see/use. HW controller is the ethernet HW controller,
> the PCI HW if you like.

I tested the following setup:

# eth0 setup:

ip addr add $IP dev eth0
ip link set up dev eth0
ip route add default via $DEF_ROUTE

# bridge setup:

brctl addbr br0
brctl setfd br0 0

Then I tested the following migration sequence to move the IP addresse to br0:

ip addr add $IP dev br0
ip link set up dev br0

brctl addif br0 eth0
ip addr del $IP dev eth0
ip route add default via $DEF_ROUTE

Thanks to "brctl setfd br0 0", this migration cause no trouble to active connections.

So I cannot find a good reason to try and use eth0 as the "main" bridge interface.

Do you have a process really linked to eth0 ?

	Nicolas.