On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 08:40:08PM -0700, Ronald G. Minnich wrote:
> On 2005年1月14日, Adam Sulmicki wrote:
> > /sbin/ifconfig eth0 0.0.0.0 up
>
> Am I the only person who sees this as a tad odd? I can't escape thinking
> about a real bridge. Seems to me each eth or vif you add to a bridge
> should retain its IP and the bridge, basically being a device that does
> mac-layer routing, has no IP.
Actually, if you think about it, it makes complete sense. I really can't
imagine a switch where each port has it's own IP address. The switch itself
having an IP address on the other hand is perfectly reasonable, as in the
case of a managed switch.
> I guess this is an artifact of how it is implemented?
I think it'd be wierd if it worked any other way, taking the above into account.
J
--
Jody Belka
knew (at) pimb (dot) org
-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues
Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek.
It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xen-devel