[pve-devel] new bridge code doesn't work with redhat kernel

[Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG]

Hello,

please wait a bit i'll contact Patrick in a few minutes as i wanted to
switch to bonding today and it stops working again.

Let's see how a real solution would look like. Right now i've the same
problem as alexandre that the VM is not reachable at all when using bond.

Alexandre maybe you can tell me how you got your bonding working?

My interfaces:

auto bond0
iface bond0 inet manual
        slaves eth0 eth1
        bond_mode 802.3ad
        bond_miimon 100
        bond_updelay 200
        bond_downdelay 10

auto vmbr0
iface vmbr0 inet manual
        bridge_ports bond0
        bridge_stp off
        bridge_fd 0

But this results in no IP communication for the VM - even without using
any vlans.

Stefan
Am 11.02.2013 09:42, schrieb Dietmar Maurer:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alexandre DERUMIER [mailto:aderumier at odiso.com]
>> Sent: Freitag, 08. Februar 2013 08:12
>> To: Stefan Priebe; Dietmar Maurer
>> Cc: pve-devel at pve.proxmox.com
>> Subject: Re: [pve-devel] new bridge code doesn't work with redhat kernel
>>
>> Hi Stefan, Thanks it's working ! (I have not aware of vlan-raw-device syntax).
>>
>> Based of this, I have a better setup, putting ip addresse on vlan interface,
>> and not on a bridge.
>> So it's a small change.
>>
>> But I really think this change should not go in stable pve repo before a big
>> release like proxmox 2.3.
>> As It ll require reboot of the host to have clean bridges without mix of tagged
>> interfaces and tagged bridges interfaces.
> 
> 2.3 release is the next release planned end of February. There is a new kernel, and
> a new kvm (1.4, including new backup code), so we need to recommend a reboot anyways.
> 
> Here is a list of advantages and disadvantages:
> 
> new code:
> 
> + works with any number of physical interfaces
> + works with gvrp
> - only tested by a few people
> - not fully compatible with existing vlan setup
> 
> old code:
> 
> + works well for many users 
> + also used by RHEV/libvirt
> - needs exactly one physical interface (should also work with 0 physical interfaces)
> - gvrp does not work (https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/7/107)
> + can use vlan hardware support (better performance?)
> 
> 
> Seems GVRP is a rarely used feature, because it is very dangerous security wise.
> 
> So what is your opinion:
> 
> A.) keep old VLAN code (revert change)
> B.) use new VLAN code
> 
> Please can we vote on that? Also include a short explanation why you prefer something.
> 
> - Dietmar
> 
>