From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Taylor Subject: Re: More ethernet port same ip address Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:46:42 -0500 Message-ID: <4884E7A2.5070403@riverviewtech.net> References: <48819901.6030604@unipex.it> <4884D160.7060701@unipex.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4884D160.7060701@unipex.it> Sender: netfilter-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Mail List - Netfilter On 07/21/08 13:11, Michele Petrazzo - Unipex srl wrote: > made some tries and I see that it works well with the "bridge" mode. > The only thing that I do was to to create a new bridge, remove the ip > address from the interfaces, add them to the bridge and set an ip > address for the bridge. Nothing other. With arp_proxy 1 or 0 it works > in the same manner. *nod* > The strange it's that I already tried this solution in test room, but > I remember that it didn't work. One think that forgot to say it's > that when I tried, I was using a different switch configuration (that > now I cannot reproduce): there was two different switch (with stp > enabled and configured), each one with 3 different vlan and each of > the three vlans end into one server ethernet port. VLANs and especially STP make things more interesting. > Here, for make the communication working, I have to setup the three > vlan(s) on the server port's, but they must have the same address. > And, with the "bridge" solution I think that I cannot. With traditional bridging, you would bridge the three (virtual) interfaces together and then bind your server's IP(s) to the bridge interface. I've got a system in service that has an excess of 24 different VLAN interfaces bridged together, and it's working great. > Thanks to all, *nod* Grant. . . .