The problem here is not with the bridge not getting the two addresses, which
I can fix on the scripts or you can fix by avoiding the bridge parameters on
the second stanza, The problem would be on the ifdown, as we would get an
error for the second stanza as the first one has already removed the
interface.
I've been trying to see a difference again in the data the bridge scripts
have in the two post-down calls to remove the interface just on the last one
but I have failed again.
I'm CCing ajt, ifupdown's mantainer to see if he can put some light on this.
So, I see three ways to handle this:
1- To pass the ball to the ifupdown guys so that they implement a way for
the scripts to know if there are more stanzas to come or this is the last
one, the one that must remove the interface (This can be achieved simply if
the interface is taken down only on the last stanza).
2- We implement a way to count and note down the number of stanzas we have
or something on this line (ideas are welcome).
3- We add an script run on pre-down that creates the bridge interface again
if it doesn't exist anymore so that the following commands that would
operate on it to take it down don't crash.
For the moment a way to fix this on the config would be to write it like
this:
iface br0 inet static
address 192.168.14.1
netmask 255.255.0.0
bridge_ports eth0
iface br0 inet6 static
address 2001:8e0:abcd:5d7::1
netmask 64
pre-down exit 1
This means that only the first stanza has the bridge parameters defined and
thus it is the only one creating or removing the bridge, plus we add the
pre-down thing to all other stanzas to avoid the execution of their down
scripts so that they don't give any errors.
For the moment I'm going to add this info to the Readme and refer this bug
on it.
Regards...
--
Manty/BestiaTester -> http://manty.net
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
