Xen users - Aug 2011 - Can you put more than one physical nic on a bridge?

Pls cc me, as I am not subscribed.

I recently purchased a pci-express gigabit ethernet card for my xen laptop, to 
upgrade the builtin 100Mbps card. Can you put both cards on xenbr0? I kept on 
getting the error:

xenbr0: received packet on [eth0,eth1] with own address as source address

I now have eth0, eth1 bonded, and bond0 is on the bridge. This works fine, so 
long as I turn off dhcp on everthing but the bridge. I''d like to know
if I can
simplify this, tho''. (The more software layers, the more points of
failure.)

Thanx.

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

I think both were probably connected to the same switch / hub in the
network. This causes a loop which often leads to strange failures.

You can put two interfaces on one bridge without problems, but one of
these criteria should apply:
- Only one interface is connected to a network at the same time, the
other one is unconnected
- The interfaces are connected to different networks
- The network supports fallback links with managed switches (this
usually only applies for servers) and is set up properly

As an alternative, you could consider routing with two interfaces, this
would never raise such problems, but is harder to achieve.

Regards,
Felix

Am 20.08.2011 15:03, schrieb jim burns:
> Pls cc me, as I am not subscribed.
>
> I recently purchased a pci-express gigabit ethernet card for my xen laptop,
to
> upgrade the builtin 100Mbps card. Can you put both cards on xenbr0? I kept
on
> getting the error:
>
> xenbr0: received packet on [eth0,eth1] with own address as source address
>
> I now have eth0, eth1 bonded, and bond0 is on the bridge. This works fine,
so
> long as I turn off dhcp on everthing but the bridge. I''d like to
know if I can
> simplify this, tho''. (The more software layers, the more points of
failure.)
>
> Thanx.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Felix Kuperjans
<felix@desaster-games.com> wrote:
> I think both were probably connected to the same switch / hub in the
> network. This causes a loop which often leads to strange failures.
>
> You can put two interfaces on one bridge without problems, but one of
> these criteria should apply:
4- activate STP and let the network break any loops.  (disclaimer: you
need to trust _all_ your switches)


-- 
Javier

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

I setup bonding on my network, and I don''t get that error anymore, I
used
bonding method 4, which is IEEE 802.3ad Dynamic link aggregation.

To use this, your network will need to support this type of bonding.

However, my experience with this type of bonding and the error going away,
could all be caused by the type of switches I am using anyhow.


On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Javier Guerra Giraldez
<javier@guerrag.com
> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Felix Kuperjans
> <felix@desaster-games.com> wrote:
> > I think both were probably connected to the same switch / hub in the
> > network. This causes a loop which often leads to strange failures.
> >
> > You can put two interfaces on one bridge without problems, but one of
> > these criteria should apply:
>
> 4- activate STP and let the network break any loops.  (disclaimer: you
> need to trust _all_ your switches)
>
>
> --
> Javier
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users