From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6AA16985A for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 12:36:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B48B72DADF for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 12:36:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.merit.unu.edu (webmail.merit.unu.edu [192.87.143.6]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9FE852DAD0 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 12:36:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.87.143.100] (ws100.merit.unu.edu [192.87.143.100]) by mail.merit.unu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 41D1F809FC0FD; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 12:36:04 +0100 (CET) To: dorsy , Proxmox VE user list References: <45b53a59-fd1d-03f0-eaea-4bdce366354f@merit.unu.edu> From: mj Message-ID: <2edd3b56-ab3b-28c2-c87f-3b6f0a7158ac@merit.unu.edu> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 12:36:03 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.270 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment KAM_NUMSUBJECT 0.5 Subject ends in numbers excluding current years NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [PVE-User] ip address on both bond0 and vmbr0 X-BeenThere: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE user list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 11:36:05 -0000 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