From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <4BAD28AC.1070607@free.fr>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 22:35:40 +0100
From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Nicolas_de_Peslo=FCan?= <nicolas.2p.debian@free.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <OFB9EFBBE7.11608167-ONC12576F1.005B0C79-C12576F1.005BBE51@transmode.se>	<2e59e6971003251003g34f45ccsf7feecbcb2d68cbf@mail.gmail.com>
	<OF55692ECA.4BA1B52C-ONC12576F1.006BA68C-C12576F1.007010C8@transmode.se>
	<4BABCF8A.3040701@free.fr>
	<OFDD80C4DC.137F4F61-ONC12576F2.002B1EE4-C12576F2.002B7EA6@transmode.se>
	<4BAD1B85.6020807@free.fr>
	<OFC6D98D54.CA7D4A8D-ONC12576F2.007212B2-C12576F2.00725708@transmode.se>
In-Reply-To: <OFC6D98D54.CA7D4A8D-ONC12576F2.007212B2-C12576F2.00725708@transmode.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Bridge] IP address on physcial interface instead of
	bridge	interface?
List-Id: Linux Ethernet Bridging <bridge.lists.linux-foundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge>, 
	<mailto:bridge-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/bridge>
List-Post: <mailto:bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bridge-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge>, 
	<mailto:bridge-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernlund@transmode.se>
Cc: bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org

Joakim Tjernlund a =E9crit :
>=20
> Nicolas de Peslo=FCan <nicolas.2p.debian@free.fr> wrote on 2010/03/26 21:=
39:33:
>=20
>> From: Nicolas de Peslo=FCan <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 ha=
rdware
>> controller !?
>>
>>    Nicolas.
>=20
> eth0 is the I/F IP stack will see/use. HW controller is the ethernet HW c=
ontroller,
> 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 b=
r0:

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 co=
nnections.

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

Do you have a process really linked to eth0 ?

	Nicolas.