[Bridge] Giving enslaved interface an IP?

Thomas Taranowski tom at baringforge.com
Tue Oct 19 12:55:03 PDT 2010

Thanks Stephen, ebtables looks like what I eventually need.  I was
able to resolve my short term problem by aliasing br0, and giving it a address, so it receives traffic on both subnets.  That
seems to resolve the issue nicely.

Thomas Taranowski
Certified netburner consultant

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Stephen Hemminger
<shemminger at linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 19:16:18 -0700
> Thomas Taranowski <tom at baringforge.com> wrote:
>> I have bridged eth0 and eth1, where eth0 is the world, and eth1 has
>> some locally administered targets with normal IPs.  On eth1, I also
>> have some other devices with 192.168.x.x addresses I locally assigned.
>>  I'd like to give my eth1 a 192.168.x.x address, and treat the
>> 192.168.x.x network as something like a local network, where anything
>> else get's bridged across to eth0.  I'm running into some problems.
>> First, when I try to ping anything on the 192.168.x.x network, it
>> get's sent out the wrong interface ( eth0 ), rather than eth1.  I
>> expected the bridge to broadcast the arp request to both interfaces.
>> Second, giving eth1 an ip address, in addition to being bridged, had
>> no obvious effect.  Can I even do this?
>> Any suggestions on where to look for additional information on this,
>> or things to try?
> Don't put IP address on only one interface unless you are
> setting up a brouter[1]. If you want to do firewalling then
> add ebtables rules to block traffic; doing firewalling
> with addressing won't work because the address won't be accessible
> as you found out.
> 1. A brouter requires additional ebtables to make packets flow.

More information about the Bridge mailing list