[Bridge] IP address on physcial interface instead of bridge interface?

Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernlund at transmode.se
Thu Mar 25 13:24:03 PDT 2010


"richardvoigt at gmail.com" <richardvoigt at gmail.com> wrote on 2010/03/25 18:03:34:
>
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Joakim Tjernlund
> <joakim.tjernlund at transmode.se> wrote:
> >
> > Currently it isn't possible to to have an IP address on one of interfaces
> > attached to a bridge, one must always put the IP address on the bridge
> interface itself.
> >
> > I wonder if there is a technical reason for that? I would love to be able
> > to be able to chose any ONE interface attached to the bridge.
> > Example:
> > Assume br0 bridge with two interfaces attached, eth0 and eth1.
> > Then I would like to assign the IP address to eth0 instead of
> > br0. Ideally one should be able to just attach eth0 with an existing IP address
> > to br0.
>
> Migrating existing configuration to the bridge at the time a port is
> added (and back to one member when the bridge is dissolved) has been
> discussed quite a bit recently, and is completely different from
> trying to independently configure L3 state of bridge ports at
> arbitrary times.

Sorry but I could not find that discussion but it doesn't sound as
what I was after. Basically I want the eth0 I/F keeping its IP address
and take over the roll of the br0 I/F when it has an IP address.

 Jocke



More information about the Bridge mailing list