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

[dorsy]

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

If there is a bridge on that bond You will eventually not separate traffic.

It is like if You've put several cables into the same network switch 
(aka: bridged the ports together).

VLANs or physical network separation are good ways to separate traffic.

On 3/23/2021 12:36 PM, mj wrote:
> 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