[pve-devel] [pve-docs] Correct the device declaration in the bonding example.

[pve-devel] [pve-docs] Correct the device declaration in the bonding example.

[Wolfgang Link]

Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Link <w.link@proxmox.com>
---
 pve-network.adoc | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/pve-network.adoc b/pve-network.adoc
index 294c201..692326f 100644
--- a/pve-network.adoc
+++ b/pve-network.adoc
@@ -355,6 +355,8 @@ iface eno1 inet manual
 
 iface eno2 inet manual
 
+iface eno3 inet manual
+
 auto bond0
 iface bond0 inet static
       slaves eno1 eno2
@@ -369,7 +371,7 @@ iface vmbr0 inet static
         address  10.10.10.2
         netmask  255.255.255.0
         gateway  10.10.10.1
-        bridge-ports eno1
+        bridge-ports eno3
         bridge-stp off
         bridge-fd 0
 
-- 
2.20.1

Re: [pve-devel] [pve-docs] Correct the device declaration in the bonding example.

[Thomas Lamprecht]

On 30.10.20 10:01, Wolfgang Link wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Link <w.link@proxmox.com>
> ---
>  pve-network.adoc | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/pve-network.adoc b/pve-network.adoc
> index 294c201..692326f 100644
> --- a/pve-network.adoc
> +++ b/pve-network.adoc
> @@ -355,6 +355,8 @@ iface eno1 inet manual
>  
>  iface eno2 inet manual
>  
> +iface eno3 inet manual
> +
>  auto bond0
>  iface bond0 inet static
>        slaves eno1 eno2
> @@ -369,7 +371,7 @@ iface vmbr0 inet static
>          address  10.10.10.2
>          netmask  255.255.255.0
>          gateway  10.10.10.1
> -        bridge-ports eno1
> +        bridge-ports eno3

or bond0 ?

>          bridge-stp off
>          bridge-fd 0
>  
> 

Re: [pve-devel] [pve-docs] Correct the device declaration in the bonding example.

[Wolfgang Link]

Both is possible.

In the original version there where three nics used.

Personally, I don't like network setup with multiple IP addresses at different layers. 
They are more complex and harder to debug.

> Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> hat am 30.10.2020 15:23 geschrieben:
> 
>  
> On 30.10.20 10:01, Wolfgang Link wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Link <w.link@proxmox.com>
> > ---
> >  pve-network.adoc | 4 +++-
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/pve-network.adoc b/pve-network.adoc
> > index 294c201..692326f 100644
> > --- a/pve-network.adoc
> > +++ b/pve-network.adoc
> > @@ -355,6 +355,8 @@ iface eno1 inet manual
> >  
> >  iface eno2 inet manual
> >  
> > +iface eno3 inet manual
> > +
> >  auto bond0
> >  iface bond0 inet static
> >        slaves eno1 eno2
> > @@ -369,7 +371,7 @@ iface vmbr0 inet static
> >          address  10.10.10.2
> >          netmask  255.255.255.0
> >          gateway  10.10.10.1
> > -        bridge-ports eno1
> > +        bridge-ports eno3
> 
> or bond0 ?
> 
> >          bridge-stp off
> >          bridge-fd 0
> >  
> >

[pve-devel] applied: [pve-docs] Correct the device declaration in the bonding example.

[Thomas Lamprecht]

On 02.11.20 07:38, Wolfgang Link wrote:
> Both is possible.
> 
> In the original version there where three nics used.
> 
> Personally, I don't like network setup with multiple IP addresses at different layers. 
> They are more complex and harder to debug.


after taking a look myself I'd say that the key point to add eno3 is
rather that we have a "Use a bond as bridge port" already after this
example.

So yes, patch is OK as is: applied, thanks!