Ethernet bridging weirdness

[Douglas Stanley]

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Serge E. Hallyn
<serge.hallyn at canonical.com> wrote:
> Quoting Douglas Stanley (douglas.m.stanley at gmail.com):
>> True, it is manual, but it's a bridge. I can't seem to find it now,
>> but that's precisely how it was supposed to be configured, according
>> to the documentation I was going by (I think it was one of the KVM
>> oriented guides). And, no, it's not showing up when I do a brctl show
>> on this one server (it shows up fine on the other *identical* server).
>
> How does it show up?  'ifconfig -a', 'ifconfig', and 'brctl show' output?
>
The bridge device doesn't show up using any of those commands (not
even ifconfig -a). The eth2 device does show up if I do ifconfig -a
(as would be expected, as the devices does exist).

I've even tried using eth1 instead of eth2, just to see if it is a
physical problem with the eth2 device, but I get the same result.

> Mind you think I've had this happen to me before, and as someone mentioned
> earlier I ended up having to apt-get remove network-manager.  Oh, maybe
> what I actually did was to add 'ifdown eth0; ifdown br0' or something
> like that to /etc/init/network-interface.conf.  It was a few months ago,
> and I just needed to get it working...

Just to be clear, I installed ubuntu server amd64, so network-manager
isn't installed, and never was. I'd also very much like to avoid doing
something hackish on this one machine just to get it to work. I have 4
machines that are physically identical (4 nodes inside a single
supermicro 2x2 chassis). I'd hate to have to configure one of them
different. It just makes no sense.

>
> -serge
>



-- 
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html