> > > > > > i'm experimenting with brctl. I hv a (linux)box with 2 int. (eth0 & > > > > eth1). > > > > My question is shld I bring eth0 down(ifconfig eth0 down) before doing > > > > the following : > > > > brctl addbr B1 > > > > brctl addif B1 eth0 > > > > ifconfig B1 up > > > > and keep it down until I delete bridge B1. > > > > Is that the 'proper' way to go about it ? > > > > > > It doesn't matter either way. Only thing that matters is to delete addresses > > > from eth0. > > > > Thanks for confirming. > > btw, is there is a real need to delete addresses from eth0.? I understand > > that since eth0 is now > > acting as a bridged interface, there is no requirement for an address. > > But what if I keep the address (on eth0) on ? > > It will most likely confuse routing. Packet will go out through eth0, but > they won't come back on eth0.
On a related note, and i'm entering unchartered territory here, if I would want to hv the bridge act like a NAT box too, wouldnt then the i/f (etho) require an IP addr. Or is it enough to assign the IP addr to the virtual i/f (B1) ? > > On a related note, if I delete addresses from eth0 & keep them on eth1, > > can we then make the box act as a brouter (bridge + router) ? > > Not without extra help, unfortunately. ebtables should be extended to > provide this functionality, but as far as I know it can't be done yet. > > > Also can (or should) a single interface behave as a brouter ? > > I'm not sure what you mean by that. this makes me want to clarify one thing. Considering a 2-port box, if one port is a bridged i/f and the other is not bridged and does normal routing, does this qualify the box to be called a brouter ? Or, can a single i/f bridge certain class/type of packets (say netbeui) while route the others(IP pkts) and , in doing so, becomes a brouter ? > > > > > > Also B1 acts as a pseudo(virutal) interface here, right? > > > > > > Ehm.. well.. yeah, it's a virtual interface all right.. although I'm not > > > sure whether that is what you wanted to know. > > > > :). You guessed it. > > Hmm..if I dont want to have a virtual interface (which i can bring > > down later) implementation, the only other (not at all the right) way is > > to probably make the interface(eth0) act as a 'permanently' bridged > > interface. i'm just trying to think of how an interface can be bridged > > w/o the virtual interface idea (which is a pretty cool one). > > hope you got what i meant. > > This, to me, sounds somewhat like "I want to drive this nail into the > wall, but I don't want to use a hammer!", if you get what I mean :) absolutely ! thanks - vish
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Information transmitted by this E-MAIL is proprietary to Wipro and/or its Customers and is intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or it appears that this mail has been forwarded to you without proper authority, you are notified that any use or dissemination of this information in any manner is strictly prohibited. In such cases, please notify us immediately at mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] and delete this mail from your records. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
