Bridging broken/unfriendly

Bridging broken/unfriendly

[Stephen Clark]

Hi,

Is there some reason Linux bridging won't let the ip address be on
one of the interfaces, like FreeBSD does, instead of the bridge device?

This makes it very difficult or impossible to remotely add the interface
you are remoted in on to a bridge, or is there some sneaky way to
do this without losing your connection?

Thanks,
Steve

-- 

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety."  (Ben Franklin)

"The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty
decreases."  (Thomas Jefferson)

Re: Bridging broken/unfriendly

[Michal Soltys]

On 11-09-25 00:28, Stephen Clark wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there some reason Linux bridging won't let the ip address be on
> one of the interfaces, like FreeBSD does, instead of the bridge device?
>

You can do that, though you have to remember about proper routing, and 
you will need ebtables to make some of the traffic not go through the 
bridge.

Check http://ebtables.sourceforge.net/examples/basic.html#all for more 
details.

Re: Bridging broken/unfriendly

[Stephen Hemminger]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 18:28:06 -0400
Stephen Clark <sclark46@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Is there some reason Linux bridging won't let the ip address be on
> one of the interfaces, like FreeBSD does, instead of the bridge device?
> 
> This makes it very difficult or impossible to remotely add the interface
> you are remoted in on to a bridge, or is there some sneaky way to
> do this without losing your connection?
> 

I would like to see a clean solution to setting up a bridge.
There was a patch that was never completed to allow migrating a ethernet
interface into a bridge. It is possible to do it with a script, by
dumping routes with ip command and replaying that into the bridge.
To really do it right (including neighbor table and iptables rules)
would be complex, especially considering the error cases.

Having looked at the FreeBSD code, that is not the answer. Trying to keep
a clean separation between IP and bridging is much better.

Re: Bridging broken/unfriendly

[Stephen Clark]

On 09/28/2011 11:30 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 18:28:06 -0400
> Stephen Clark<sclark46@earthlink.net>  wrote:
>
>    
>> Hi,
>>
>> Is there some reason Linux bridging won't let the ip address be on
>> one of the interfaces, like FreeBSD does, instead of the bridge device?
>>
>> This makes it very difficult or impossible to remotely add the interface
>> you are remoted in on to a bridge, or is there some sneaky way to
>> do this without losing your connection?
>>
>>      
> I would like to see a clean solution to setting up a bridge.
> There was a patch that was never completed to allow migrating a ethernet
> interface into a bridge. It is possible to do it with a script, by
> dumping routes with ip command and replaying that into the bridge.
> To really do it right (including neighbor table and iptables rules)
> would be complex, especially considering the error cases.
>
> Having looked at the FreeBSD code, that is not the answer. Trying to keep
> a clean separation between IP and bridging is much better.
>
>    
Hi Stephen,

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I had pretty much decided I would 
have to do some kind
of script that would do everything at once, instead of trying to do the 
commands one at a
time from the console.

Regards,
Steve

-- 

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety."  (Ben Franklin)

"The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty
decreases."  (Thomas Jefferson)