From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: Bridge: request for the via_phys_dev feature discussion Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 04:30:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20100226.043028.245172342.davem@davemloft.net> References: <4B7D30B8.2050400@openvz.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: shemminger@linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: xemul@openvz.org Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:41254 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935853Ab0BZMaK (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Feb 2010 07:30:10 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4B7D30B8.2050400@openvz.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Pavel Emelyanov Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:21:12 +0300 > In simple situation containers users want to bridge their containers through > veth device with the host eth0 adapter. But after one add his eth0 to bridge > he need to > a) reconfigure everything including IP addresses, routing tables and > netfilter rules > b) recreate connections that were bound to eth0 > > That's OK if one setup the box from the scratch and adds eth0 to bridge from > the very beginning, but for those who start using containers on pre-configured > boxes or for those, who decided to switch to bridge+veth from some other > virtual device (e.g. macvlan or venet device in OpenVZ) this becomes real pain. > > I don't insist you accept the patches Cyrill proposed, I don't even insist > we rework them keeping the idea intact. I just want to know your opinion about > how to solve the above problem better. Stephen, please work with Pavel on finding a solution for this issue that works for you. Thanks.