Subject: Re: bridge and IPs
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Marcin Jessa <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/22/2005 09:40:44
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 21:41:33 -0400
Thor Lancelot Simon <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 09:20:31AM +1000, Daniel Carosone wrote:
> > It's not presently possible. It's something I've wished for in the
> > past, too, in particular for cases where the set of interfaces in a
> > bridge is subject to change.
> I think it's a really bad idea. It's about as bad a layering violation
> as I can think of. It's trivial to just add a tap interface if you
> want to actually have one particular MAC address (and IP address, if
> that's what you're after) on the bridge all the time.
Won't dev tap add overhead and decrease responsiveness of the setup?
Could you please explain more why you think it's such a bad thing to do?
I really don't see it more of an bad idea than having firewalling code work on packets sent through bridges.