Michael Richardson scrisse:
> >>>>> "Luca" == Luca BRUNO <lucab@debian.org> writes:
> Luca> Hi all, I'm currently scratching my head with this
> Luca> doubt/curiosity: why do Linux bridged interfaces have an
> Luca> ipv6 linklocal address? is it fine?
>
> Luca> In particular, I'm currently experiencing troubles in such a
> Luca> scenario with two virtual machines bridged to a virtual
> Luca> switch.
>
> Luca> [VM-A] ---- br0 ---- (virtual switch) --- br1 --- [VM-B]
>
> Luca> I can see that after upping brX, the interface gets a ipv6
> Luca> linklocal address.
>
> What's a virtual switch?
> Do you mean a router? ("layer-3 switch")
To give more details, the scenario above is composed by two LXC
environments connected through the NS-3 simulator, which is in fact
doing layer 1 and 2 simulation/switching.
From the documentation, it looks like the preferred method to give
connectivity to the lxc containers is to bridge together the guest-tap
with the host-tap; that's why I did it in the first place.
But as it's giving me additional nuisances, I'll try to get rid of it
and glue directly together NS-3 to guest-taps.
> I'd prefer if the member devices of a bridge had their link-local
> addresses removed by the kernel when they get added to the bridge.
With your and Peter's usecase, I see that it may be a saner default.
Indeed, I was just puzzled at first as I was looking for a plain
transparent L2 bridge.
In the end, I think I may have used used a wrong approach/setup for my
goal, so I'll look to simplify it.
Cheers, Luca
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Luca Bruno (kaeso)
: :' : The Universal O.S. | lucab (AT) debian.org
`. `'` | GPG Key ID: 3BFB9FB3
`- http://www.debian.org | Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature