Simon Walter <si...@gikaku.com> 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. _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
