Jerry Vonau wrote: > Jerry Vonau wrote: >> OR do you want msh0, msh1, and msh2 on the same bridge? That would >> require editing the BRIDGE= line to be the same bridge device in all >> three ifcfg-mshX files > > Sorry make that read TYPE= >
Which reminds me, I might be missing something here, but what was the reasoning behind having one bridge per interface, and not just adding all the msh + eth1 devices to a single bridge, and use 172.18.0.1/20 as the ip address of the bridge? Then it wouldn't matter if eth1 is present or not, this main address would be bound to the bridge, and present as long as the bridge is active, even with no available devices for the bridge present. No dummies files required. ;-) If service restriction is need, then just use iptables to block the unwanted traffic. Cleaner layout, no? Food for thought, Jerry _______________________________________________ Server-devel mailing list Server-devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/server-devel
