From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4D0E845B.60203@online.nl> Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 23:16:59 +0100 From: Rolf Fokkens MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090706090003080702050803" Subject: Re: [Bridge] Why should static MAC address match one of the port MAC addresses. List-Id: Linux Ethernet Bridging List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------090706090003080702050803 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all, I'm having the problem Michiel describes as well. I have a bridge br2 containing 1 (but potentially more) tap interface for kvm. Windows 7 VM doesn't like the bridge mac address to change, so I try to make it fixed. ifconfig br2 hw ether 02:00:00:00:01:02 Interface br2 becomes instantly unreachable from the VM (via the tap interface). So, Michiel's claim still seems to be true: the bridge mac address should apparently be one of the bridge interfaces. I don't see the logic, this seems like a bug to me. Cheers, Rolf ------------------------------------------------------------------------ * /To/: Michel Lammertink > * /Subject/: Re: Why should static MAC address match one of the port MAC addresses. * /From/: Stephen Hemminger > * /Date/: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 09:44:08 -0700 * /Cc/: bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx * /In-reply-to/: <4CB46549.2070901@xxxxxxxxx > * /Organization/: Linux Foundation * /References/: <4CB46549.2070901@xxxxxxxxx > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 15:40:25 +0200 Michel Lammertink wrote: >/ Hi all,/ >/ / >/ I've read many messages on this mailing list with the question about/ >/ setting a static MAC address on the bridge interface, but two questions/ >/ remain:/ >/ / >/ 1. Why should the MAC address of the bridge match the address of one of/ >/ its interfaces? Setting the MAC address to a different value does not/ >/ generate an error, but the bridge is not working properly (Local data/ >/ does not arrive)./ No longer a requirement. It was just a good way to ensure a good address that was unique, and not being used by other systems. >/ 2. Why does the bridge by default choose the "lowest" MAC address,/ >/ instead of the MAC address of the first port added, as is proposed by/ >/ the standard [1]?/ It was a convenience in original design to choose a consistent value. Since ports can be added in any order, using the lowest seemed like a good idea for the original author. This has been maintained for backwards compatibility. >/ [1] IEEE802.1D, Par. 7.12.5./ >/ Quote: "The Bridge Address may be the individual MAC Address of a/ >/ Bridge Port, in which case, use of the address of the lowest numbered/ >/ Bridge Port (Port 1) is recommended."/ >/ / >/ Thanks in advance,/ >/ / >/ Michel./ --------------090706090003080702050803 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all,

I'm having the problem Michiel describes as well. I have a bridge br2 containing 1 (but potentially more) tap interface for kvm. Windows 7 VM doesn't like the bridge mac address to change, so I try to make it fixed.

ifconfig br2 hw ether 02:00:00:00:01:02

Interface br2 becomes instantly unreachable from the VM (via the tap interface).

So, Michiel's claim still seems to be true: the bridge mac address should apparently be one of the bridge interfaces.

I don't see the logic, this seems like a bug to me.

Cheers,

Rolf

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 15:40:25 +0200 Michel Lammertink <mlammertink@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> I've read many messages on this mailing list with the question about
> setting a static MAC address on the bridge interface, but two questions
> remain:
> 
>  1. Why should the MAC address of the bridge match the address of one of
> its interfaces? Setting the MAC address to a different value does not
> generate an error, but the bridge is not working properly (Local data
> does not arrive).

No longer a requirement. It was just a good way to ensure a good
address that was unique, and not being used by other systems.

>  2. Why does the bridge by default choose the "lowest" MAC address,
> instead of the MAC address of the first port added, as is proposed by
> the standard [1]?

It was a convenience in original design to choose a consistent value.
Since ports can be added in any order, using the lowest seemed like
a good idea for the original author. This has been maintained for
backwards compatibility.

> [1] IEEE802.1D, Par. 7.12.5.
>     Quote: "The Bridge Address may be the individual MAC Address of a
> Bridge Port, in which case, use of the address of the lowest numbered
> Bridge Port (Port 1) is recommended."
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> Michel.
--------------090706090003080702050803--