Comment 5 for bug 1508575

I feel this is actually more of a conceptual misunderstanding. After pondering this issue for a while now, it dawned on me.....

You cannot create a VIP on a bridge interface.
You cannot create a VIP on an interface to which a bridge is bound.

The former, is due to the fact that the bridge owns the interface to which it is bound, the later is because the bridge is already a virtual device.

1. Using MAAS as a provider, 'juju-br0' is created on the primary interface ('eth0' or last interface provisioned with gateway route) for physical/virtual nodes.
2. Juju + MAAS provisioned containers only have 1 network interface and it gets owned by 'juju-br0'.

  2.a. 'juju-br0' owns the interface it is bridged on (no vips can be created on 'eth0' when 'juju-br0' is bound to 'eth0').
  2.b. You can't create a VIP on a virtual bridge interface (i.e. 'juju-br0')!
  2.c. Containers provisioned by juju only have one network interface (hence no option for VIP).

I believe this proves that currently:
    - HA deployed service units must configure VIP on interface other than interface which 'juju-br0' binds to (must set 'vip_iface' and 'ha-bindiface' to interface other than the primary).
    - Services deployed to containers not eligible for HA.

Let me know your thoughts.

Thanks!