On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 12:33:02PM +0530, Vishwanathan K wrote:
> > > 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) ? Do you want to do NAT with routing or NAT with bridging? I assume you want to do it with bridging, because you are using the bridge code, and you need at least 2 interfaces for sane bridging, leaving you no interfaces to route to. OK, so what kind of NAT do you want to do? SNAT? You don't need an IP address assigned to the bridge for that (unless you want masquerading, but if you weren't going to assign an address anyway, that makes no sense), so I assume you want DNAT. OK, so do you want to DNAT to the bridge box, or to another box? If you want to DNAT to the bridge box, you will need an IP address assigned to it, which you would assign to the bridge interface. If you want to DNAT to another box, you will probably need an IP address for ARPing, which you would also assign to the bridge interface. Does this make it clearer? > > > 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 ? Please clarify me another thing.. how can you build a bridge from one port only? I don't get that. > 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 ? I think (I'm not sure) that the definition of a brouter is a device that bridges certain protocols while it routes others. In general, you cannot designate a certain interface to be a 'routing' or 'bridging' interface, that is the wrong way of looking at things. cheers, Lennert _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/mailman/listinfo/bridge
