--/04w6evG8XlLl3ft
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 07:50:46AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> Why do you need to bridge to another interface at all?  On my dom0
> box, I have fxp0 and xvifN.0 for 3 values of N.  In my case, I have
> them all bridged, and the xvifNs do not have addresses.  But you could
> just put an address on one of those in your private segment and
> routing should work.

You mean I can give an IP to one of the xvif interfaces and use that? =20
Hmm, that looks like a pain to setup automatically at boot.  And if that
particular domU goes down, I have to reconfigure my dom0 to continue to
communicate with the other domU's over the private LAN...  Not ideal.

> Probably lo(4) needs bridge support, and adding that would be the right
> thing really.

That looks like the most elegant solution (already suggested by Florian)
but doesn't work ATM.

	Geert

--/04w6evG8XlLl3ft
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (NetBSD)

iQEVAwUBRQf1uoLS9urEu56fAQLEIggApOXiRO+pVFrKmkPQ6fphhRx8JNRZp9kI
lo81Yn0ChTsqBX2tPAU2b5gqYJK6pDl79tYPlnlLyNvZPhdHOVrIscRab3ejJUQJ
4CgdkYO+QapoEEzo69VgWQbJ4f+mxGjDwaFq4JZ9dtjX+rlgswSx/r2IkGDdhWQt
uF8djjMEF1QqSCWl3ueeyEmMzMB6N2lRCWLBf01AAoZeEr8gW6cmfwvUn6G3V4MS
cU7Trdk5eBhKCZsq/vt+csSjhB4QcLrCf84Jr1RuEiILAhQl9QVgQGab8/q/0PfH
F+IY4P5QYb2RkPDp2steeVD5SAPtCqeeEFaeO4uvN5PjsbDAu6PclA==
=+fkR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--/04w6evG8XlLl3ft--