From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris J Arges Subject: net: bonding inside a bridge does not work when using arp monitoring Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:11:51 -0600 Message-ID: <4F15F227.8000909@canonical.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jiri Bohac , leonardo.borda@canonical.com To: netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:47838 "EHLO youngberry.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755234Ab2AQWLy (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:11:54 -0500 Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi, Currently arp_monitoring does not work when the below configuration is used. The idea is to have vlans for every virtual bridge, this way we can have many networks in a KVM (virtualization setup) while still having arp_monitoring through br0. PS: FYI this setup does work with miimon activated. eth0----+ +----bond0.100----br0-100---{+virtual machines | | +----bond0----+----br0---(using fixed ip)->--{LAN where the arp_ip_target resides} | | eth1----+ +----bond0.200----br0-200---{+virtual machines br0 --> br0 in my understanding is an untagged vlan therefore it provides access to my LAN. So I am able to access that server from my internal network. br0-100 and br0-200 -> Vlans over a bridged interface will allow me to have many virtual machines in the same vlan on each bridged interface. More information about this bug can be found in the bug reports [2] and [3]. First thing would be to understand if this setup is correct. In addition, any further tests can be done by myself or Leonardo Borda. Looking at the kernel messages it looks like br0 is not able to send out ARP notifications. The question is: 1. Can we do that since we also have br0-{1,2}00 hooked up to bond.100 and bond.200 ? 2. Also looking at the /etc/network/interfaces configuration example the vlans do not have an IP address which may play a role as per the bonding.txt documentation [1]. A potentially relevant thread that I found was here [4]. Could this patch affect this particular set up? Thanks, --chris j arges [1] - http://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/networking/bonding.txt [2] - https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/736226 [3] - https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31822 [4] - http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-netdev/2010/4/28/6275890