Re: [PVE-User] ip address on both bond0 and vmbr0

[mj <lists@merit.unu.edu>]

Hi Dorsy,

Thanks for the quick reply! :-)

On 23/03/2021 11:51, dorsy wrote:
> Also, if You look at the examples, they do not use a bond and VM bridge 
> with 2 addresses, in the first, an IP is on the bond, the VM bridge is 
> another physical IF.
> 
> The second example shows the VM bridge is over the bond, and the IP is 
> on the bridge IF (no IP on the bond there).

Yes, I realise they are not identical. (that's why I said: freely based 
on..)

I thought: adding the ceph IP on the bond0 would be a nice and easy way 
to seperate ceph traffic from the VMs.

I have tried now as you suggested, and that works, yes. Thank you!

> iface vmbr0 inet static
>         address 192.168.143.10/24
>         gateway 192.168.143.1
>         bridge-ports bond0
>         bridge-stp off
>         bridge-fd 0
>         post-up /sbin/ip addr add 10.0.0.10/24 dev vmbr0

I just remain curious why it would be so strange to put the IP on bond0. 
I do see most examples on the net NOT having an IP on bond0. So I 
understand it's not normal.

But what's wrong with it?

I tried also putting the "post-up addr add" stanza to bond0 config, but 
it doesn't work as well. (strange, given that adding it works, after 
boot has finished)

I will use your suggestion, thanks, appreciated.

But still: Why is putting an ip on bond0 considered strange, and why 
doesn't it work *during* boot, and does it work *after* boot?

MJ