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