Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 16 Oct 2017 11:24:23 +0000
From:      bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org
To:        freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   [Bug 221122] Attatching vxlan interfaces to a bridge stops all traffic on it
Message-ID:  <bug-221122-2472-eyqtzFrfho@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-221122-2472@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
References:  <bug-221122-2472@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D221122

Heinz N. Gies <heinz@project-fifo.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|Works As Intended           |---
             Status|Closed                      |Open

--- Comment #4 from Heinz N. Gies <heinz@project-fifo.net> ---
I understand that it acts as implemented i.e. is not a code bug. Before we
close this I'd like to make a case that is not working as intended but rath=
er
working as accepted.

The VNET system is rather new in FreeBSD, bridges, on the other hand, exist=
 for
a lot longer.

Historically bridges were used in a rather static manner, to bridge physical
interfaces (they don't change often), or bridge between physical interfaces=
 and
tunnels or other virtual but too rather static interfaces.

This kind of use is often a one-time configuration that happens on system
startup or in the case of tunnels in an incredibly rare basis. At those tim=
es
the loss of connectivity for a few seconds either has no impact (during
startup), or the impact is neglectable (i.e. adding tunnel interfaces as no=
 one
is connected to a nonexisting interface anyway).

I suspect that when the decision was made to implement it this way all that=
 was
taken into consideration and (rightfully so) it wasn't worth the work for
finding an alternative as it was working good enough for its use.

VNET and more so VNET jails change things a bit, they make network
configuration more dynamic. It becomes required to add and remove interface=
s to
a bridge dynamically - something that I suspect wasn't foreseen.

Features do not exist in a void, they exist in relation to their environmen=
t.
The environment for bridges changed and while it was fine before it becomes
problematic in this changed environment.

I agree it's not a 'bug' in the bridge driver. But we can not look at a sin=
gle
component in isolation and on a system level, I'm sure that 'starting/stopp=
ing
a vnet jail means all other vnet jails loose connectivity' is intended
behavior.

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.=



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-221122-2472-eyqtzFrfho>