Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

7
  • So, speaking about the actual linux mechanisms (not about good practices), it means that if I put an interface under a bridge, it is no longer considered by the kernel as a L2/L3 adressable interface ? right ? As nothing prevents from assigning it a MAC/IP, it's confusing. Commented Oct 28, 2013 at 9:37
  • 1
    @Jocelyn The other way around. If it is still addressable as L2/3 it will block the other traffic. So it should not be addressed directly if on a bridge. Commented Oct 29, 2013 at 20:26
  • ok, but by default the port remains adressable on L2 (keeps a MACaddr if I don't remove it), right ? why does it let the L2 traffic flow to the bridge ? Commented Oct 30, 2013 at 9:36
  • 2
    @Jocelyn As long as it does not respond to arp-requests everything will be good on l2/3. If it does not capture packets it will let pass packets into the network part of the kernel. Commented Nov 2, 2013 at 20:10
  • Ok. I asked cause I noticed that some trafic was dropped when assigning an address to the port ; but it was caused by rp_filter. Commented Nov 4, 2013 at 13:31