On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 14:33:29 +0200 Arturo Borrero Gonzalez
<aborr...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Imagine this setup:
eno1 -- physical base device
eno1.1111 -- vlan sub-interface
eno1.2222 -- vlan sub-interface
br01 -- bridge device
I add eno1.1111 and eno1.2222 to br01 as ports.
I discovered that if use a more modern approach to naming the vlan
devices this problem won't show up.
If instead of 'eno1.1111' you create 'vlan1111' then the algorithm to
disable IPv6 wont detect the base interface and therefore will leave it
alone.
This definitely feels fragile and inconsistent, and additional
indication that the patch proposed by Anton may be the right course of
action.
regards.
