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.
::
Re: [DNG] ifconfig vs ip
