:: Re: [DNG] ifconfig vs ip
Top Page
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: Rainer Weikusat
Date:  
To: dng
Subject: Re: [DNG] ifconfig vs ip
Simon Walter <simon@???> writes:
> 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.


With bridge_ports, the bridge interfaces is managed via ifup/-down. This
means it's created on up and destroyed on down. Hence, trying to destroy
it again 'after down' causes this message.