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
::
Re: [DNG] ifconfig vs ip
