Mark Maule wrote: > I still need an interface named pmi_if0 that represents the bridged links.
Why? > As I see it I can either rename one of the links to pmi_if0, or put a pmi_if0 vnic on top of one of them (suggested by Rishi). > > So now say I have this on one of the OS machines: > > igb0 plumbed > igb1 plumbed > igb0 assigned 172.30.80.154 via dhcp > bridge bridge0 over igb0 and igb1 > vnic pmi_if0 over igb0 > > I should now have an interface pmi_if which will forward broadcast packets > out igb0 and igb1. Yes, that should work. If you name the bridge as just "bridge", then you should have no problem with renaming igb0 to pmi_if0. What worries me is the apparent desire to name the bridge "pmi_if" and then rename some other link or VNIC to be "pmi_if0". I don't think that'll end well, and I see no point in it. > And either igb0 or igb1 goes down, 172.30.80.154 is still reachable through > the other interface, correct? If your concern is for the link going down, then don't worry about it. When links are bridged, they remain "up" as long as at least one real underlying interface is still "up." In other words, if you bridge igb0 and igb1, then plumb IP on igb0 and then leave the actual igb0 port unconnected -- no wire at all -- you can still send and receive on igb1 through what the IP layer sees as "igb0." The fact that the "actual" igb0 is unconnected is immaterial. It's like having a real bridge connect those two ports. -- James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W <carls...@workingcode.com> _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list networking-discuss@opensolaris.org
