Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 09:54:32 +0200 From: Guido Falsi <mad@madpilot.net> To: Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> Cc: stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: 7-STABLE: bridge and em Message-ID: <20080528075432.GA48519@megatron.madpilot.net> In-Reply-To: <72197513@bs1.sp34.ru> References: <72197513@bs1.sp34.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 02:15:18AM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote: > Hello list! > > > When em0 has an inet address while bridge0 doesn't, it seems to be OK: [...] > Did I miss something? Thanks! I discovered the same thing while experimenting with qemu and bridgeng. I think it simply works different from (for example) widnows bridging. I think it's meant to be like that. It also looks more logical either. I think of the bridge as just a packet router, which routes them to all the interfaces(physical and virtual as well) so if the bridge intercepts them with it's own address they can't ereach other interfaces, obviosusly. Maybe I'm wrong here? -- Guido Falsi <mad@madpilot.net>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080528075432.GA48519>