Hi, Quoting Santiago Garcia Mantinan (2022-02-03 23:09:43) > On Xan 20 2022, Anton Khirnov wrote: > > Attaching a patch. I still couldn't think of a reason this code should > > ever disable IPv6 on the physical interface, so it's removed > > unconditionally. If anyone can think of such a reason, then I guess an > > option could be added? > > Well, the thing here is that since de beginning of the bridge code it was > recommended not to add ip addresses to the bridge ports, this was a long > time ago, and maybe it has changed, if so, I'd like to know when. > > But anyway... why would you want to have > an IP v4 or v6 on the bridge ports? why not having it on the bridge itself?
This is NOT about addresses on bridge ports (and I agree those are not needed or desirable), but the case where the bridge port is a VLAN interface. Then the current code prevents you from using not just the VLAN interface (e.g. eth0.3), but also the underlying physical interface (i.e. eth0). I see no reason why you should not use both of these simultaneously. The patch I sent does not change anything about disabling ipv6 on the bridge port interface, only for the underlying physical interface for a VLAN bridge port. -- Anton Khirnov
