On Sun, 06 Feb 2022 08:58:38 +0100 Anton Khirnov <an...@khirnov.net> wrote:
Quoting Santiago Garcia Mantinan (2022-02-05 22:56:09)
> Well, having IPv6 addresses attached to those ports can also be undesirable,
Could you please explain why do you think so? It would be good to have
the reason documented somewhere, as this behavior was quite surprising
to me.
> I really think that those addresses should be allowed with an explicit
> config not by default.
I suppose adding an option won't be too hard. I'll send a new patch.
There is something I'm not quite understanding.
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.
Why would the bridge care about the IPv6 setup that I have on eno1?
Perhaps is too invasive (and counterintuitive anyways).
The base/parent device shouldn't be affected by the setup used on the
sub-devices. The configuration for the base interface should be left
untouched.
I think the patch by Anton Khirnov may be the right approach.
This problem is affecting 2 different virtual machine setups in my
organization (openstack and ganeti).
regards.
--
Arturo Borrero Gonzalez
Senior Site Reliability Engineer
Wikimedia Cloud Services
Wikimedia Foundation
