[CentOS] NetworkManger creates extra bonds; is this a bug?

[Digimer]

On 07/07/16 05:36 PM, Digimer wrote:
> On 07/07/16 05:21 PM, Joe Smithian wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I see an unexpected beahviour from NetworkManager on CentOS 7.1.
>> Using nmcli tool, I create a bond with two slaves as explained in the Red
>> Hat 7.1 Networking guide. I enable slaves and master; bond works as
>> expected.
>> When I restart NetworkManager, it creates a new bond with the same name but
>> not connected to any device. Two bonds with the same name is confusing for
>> my other monitoring scripts.
>> I'm wondering why a second bond is created? Is it a bug in NetworkManger?
>>
>>
>> #Create a bond with two slaves
>> nmcli con add autoconnect no type bond con-name bond0 ifname bond0
>> nmcli con mod bond0 ipv6.method ignore ipv4.method manual  ipv4.addresses
>> ${BOND_IP}/${BOND_CIDR} ${BOND_GW} ${BOND_DNS} ${BOND_DNS_SEARCH}
>> ipv4.never-default no ipv4.ignore-auto-dns no
>> nmcli con add autoconnect no type bond-slave con-name bond-slave-eth0
>> ifname eth0 master bond0
>> nmcli con add autoconnect no type bond-slave con-name bond-slave-eth1
>> ifname eth1 master bond0
>>
>> #Enable bond
>> nmcli con mod bond-slave-eth0 connection.autoconnect yes
>> nmcli con up bond-slave-eth0
>>
>> nmcli con mod bond-slave-eth1 connection.autoconnect yes
>> nmcli con up bond-slave-eth1
>>
>> nmcli con mod bond0 connection.autoconnect yes
>> nmcli con up bond0
>>
>> systemctl restart NetworkManager
>> systemctl restart iptables
>>
>> nmcli con | grep bond
>> bond0            9942bdc6-df72-4723-b2ed-47a78e3a5c59  bond            bond0
>> bond-slave-eth0  8b0fbbe1-a7f0-448c-8005-46d11599f57a  802-3-ethernet  eth0
>> bond-slave-eth1  333dd1b9-15a4-4119-8e42-55ac3621a85d  802-3-ethernet  eth1
>> *bond0            460dd9e8-bc0b-473e-9c89-41facda98b66  bond
>> --    # Why this extra bond connections has been created?*
>>
>>
>> I'd appreciate your comments and suggestions to fix the issue.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Joe
> 
> To this day, on EL6, creating bonds always generates a spurious 'bond0'
> interface with no slaved interfaces. It was reported to red hat bugzilla
> ages ago but the issue was closed without resolution (sorry, I've been
> looking for the rhbz# but haven't found it yet).
> 
> digimer

Found it:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1245440

====
Neil Horman 2015-07-22 14:30:57 EDT

inserting the bonding module always creates the first bond interface,
thats always how its been, and isn't a bug.

Status: NEW → CLOSED
Resolution: --- → NOTABUG
Last Closed: 2015-07-22 14:30:57
====

digimer

-- 
Digimer
Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/
What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without
access to education?