:: Re: [DNG] ifconfig vs ip
Top Page
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: Simon Walter
Date:  
To: dng
Subject: Re: [DNG] ifconfig vs ip


On 06/10/2016 03:55 PM, Greg Olsen wrote:
> On 2016-06-10 06:34, Greg Olsen wrote:
>     [snip]
>  > The only side-effect are the extra messages during ifup with
>  > "bridge_ports none":

> >
>  > iface testbr1 inet static
>  >         bridge_ports none
>  >         address 10.91.0.1
>  >         netmask 255.255.0.0
>  >         network 10.91.0.0
>  >         broadcast 10.91.255.255
>  >         bridge_stp off           # disable Spanning Tree Protocol
>  >         bridge_waitport 0        # no delay before a port becomes
> available
>  >         bridge_fd 0              # no forwarding delay
>  >         up        ip link set $IFACE up
>  >         down      ip link set $IFACE down

>
> Sorry to respond to my own post here:
> I meant to remove the up/down statements in the example above. Those
> aren't needed either when using "bridge_ports none".


No, that's cool and thanks for explaining. I think the up/down
statements are not needed at all. It seems to work without them -
whether using pre/post line or "bridge_ports none".

Using "bridge_ports none" and then having post line delete the bridge
does however cause message to say the device does not exist.

I am a bit confused about the distros relationship with ifupdown. Isn't
/etc/network/interfaces Debian specific? So I am guessing the ifup/down
is a different program on say CentOS. I should try to stay relevant even
though I use mostly Devaun now.

Cheers,

Simon