[Xen-users] Unexpected (?) bridging behavior in 2.0.7/FC4

[master@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

I've got 2.0.7 running on a machine with 1 physical interface and two
bridges, like so --

bridge name     bridge id               STP enabled     interfaces
xen-br0         8000.0040f4ce392f       no              eth1
                                                        vif5.0
                                                        vif9.0
xenbr1          8000.feffffffffff       no              vif5.1
                                                        vif9.1

Bridge xenbr1 does not have an IP assigned, as I want vif5.1, vif9.1 to be
on an "untethered" bridge so it is isolated from dom0 --

[root@teegeeack ~]# ifconfig xenbr1
xenbr1    Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr FE:FF:FF:FF:FF:FF
          UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
          RX packets:47 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
          RX bytes:1860 (1.8 KiB)  TX bytes:0 (0.0 b)

If I run tcpdump -i xenbr1 on dom0, should I see all traffic on xenbr1
(vif5.1 and vif9.1)? In this case the domU on vif5.1 has IP 192.168.5.8
and vif9.1 has IP 192.168.5.9. If I run tcpdump on xenbr1 and ping .8, I
don't see any packets. If I run tcpdump on xenbr1 and ping .9, I do see
the packets.

So, I suppose the question is -- is this expected? What I want is for the
bridge to act like a hub, not a switch, but my testing shows it's not
acting like either. My intent is to use snort on a bridge without an IP
assigned.

I've tried running tcpdump on the vifs in dom0 as well. Only the pings to
192.168.5.9 are captured. Am I missing something?

Signed,

Confused



_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users