Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 05:11:38 +0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> To: Ruben <mail@osfux.nl>, Harry Schmalzbauer <freebsd@omnilan.de> Cc: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Subject: Re: superfluous host interfaces Message-ID: <24dc03e2-e28b-0670-4b8f-21e7677ce415@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <54f9019e-6e86-8e10-32d7-9f14d159bb0a@osfux.nl> References: <20180225131401.GA3138@v007.zyxst.net> <5A93CEB6.1080406@omnilan.de> <a0ccbf77-ec23-127c-0529-ddb05dc689e3@osfux.nl> <5A93D9D0.4090804@omnilan.de> <54f9019e-6e86-8e10-32d7-9f14d159bb0a@osfux.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 26/2/18 6:34 pm, Ruben wrote: > On 26/02/2018 10:56, Harry Schmalzbauer wrote: > >>> Hi Harry, >>> >>> >>> What are your reasons for preferring ng_bridge over the "normal" bridge? >> Two very different main reasons: >> if_bridge(4) is very standards compliant (e.g. that different reserved >> MAC addresses won't get forwarded – don't know any explicit examples out >> of mind), which was problematic for some SDN setups (software defined >> networking, in means of sharing a PHY for multiple VMs and >> simultaniously interconnect VMs to VMs) >> >> Another, personally very significant, reason is that you'll get a >> superfluous host interface for each if_bridge(4), which makes the output >> of plain ifconfig(8) kind of unreadable. >> For VM SDN, I don't need/want those host interfaces, despite they don't >> do any harm. >> >> vale(4) was extremely convinient. Simply create a switch, then each VM >> attaches on the fly :-) >> Unfortunately, I'm unable to debug the lockups and my setups was kind of >> hacky, since I haven't used NIC's native netmap(4) support, but used >> emulated netmap(4) for if_vlan(4). This leads to loss of almost all >> performance advantages, but left convinience advantages. Unfortunately, >> emulated netmap(4) is supposed to have some unresolved problems on >> FreeBSD and upstream hackers consider my hacky setup as wrong by nature >> – which it is technically speaking. For real-world usagen, one would >> need to code a VLAN filter between bhyve(4) and vale(4). Skillwise, I'm >> not the one :-( >> >> -harry > Hi Harry, > > Thank you for elaborating on that. I took the liberty of creating a new > mailthread as my questions are kind of off-topic to the original thread. > > By superflous host interfaces, do you mean the tap interfaces configured > for each vm together with the bridge interfaces they are "bundled" in? > > Overall I'm very happy with my bhyve setups atm. If there are any > speed-/administrative-advantages that come with bridge_ng however, I'm > very interested in switching to such a setup (or at least play with it). > I'm running my vm's without any helper project so I'm flexible enough to > do some fiddling :P > > Do you know of any documentation on using bridge_ng together with bhyve? > My search-engines don't turn up much Im affraid and I haven't stumbled > on it before. I will add another postive to ng_bridge and a negative.. using ng_bridge makes it easier to do funk things with your network if you want to but it requires you to do your own scripting. see the jail examples in /usr/share/examples and replace the jail with bhyve. > > Kind regards, > > Ruben > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?24dc03e2-e28b-0670-4b8f-21e7677ce415>