From owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 2 11:03:40 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 206F316A400 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2007 11:03:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from per@hedeland.org) Received: from pluto.hedeland.org (1-1-1-13a.mal.sth.bostream.se [82.182.84.27]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 787F013C447 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2007 11:03:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from per@hedeland.org) Received: from pluto.hedeland.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pluto.hedeland.org (8.13.6/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l52B3cPL021569 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 2 Jun 2007 13:03:38 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from per@pluto.hedeland.org) Received: (from per@localhost) by pluto.hedeland.org (8.13.6/8.13.1/Submit) id l52B3bvb021568; Sat, 2 Jun 2007 13:03:37 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from per) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 13:03:37 +0200 (CEST) From: Per Hedeland Message-Id: <200706021103.l52B3bvb021568@pluto.hedeland.org> To: scottro@nyc.rr.com In-Reply-To: <20070601225443.GA1636@mail.scottro.net> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.48 on 10.1.1.1 Cc: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Running "Windows Emulation" headless ... possible? X-BeenThere: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Development of Emulators of other operating systems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 11:03:40 -0000 Scott Robbins wrote: > >On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 11:31:47PM +0200, Per Hedeland wrote: >> Scott Robbins wrote: >> >> > Some of the things I mention in CURRENT are definitely only >> >workable in CURRENT, at this point. >> >> Could you be specific? > >Sorry, I meant giving the IP address to the bridge, Hm? If you mean that it is required to give it an IP address in CURRENT, that's hardly a feature:-) - and I still believe you're wrong about that requirement, see below. It's certainly *possible* to do it in 6.x too. > as well as that >if_tap, allowing the user to open it. $ uname -sr FreeBSD 6.1-RELEASE $ sysctl -a | grep tap.user_open net.link.tap.user_open: 1 It doesn't have tap.up_on_open though, but of course you don't need it either given the existence of qemu-ifup. >Yes, the reason it caused me problems turned out to be (I did a bit of >experimenting when I got home) is because my qemu-ifup script ends with >bridge0 addm ${1}. So does mine - of course, that's the line that is causing the error message - but it doesn't cause any actual problems. >So, I can see that, especially since you set it in rc.conf, that you >don't need to assign the bridge an address--I'm sure you're right if you >tell me I'm wrong to do so. There is nothing magic with putting it in rc.conf, just a convenience to have the rc scripts do the commands for you at boot instead of doing them manually. However I see now that your "manual" commands are neglecting to "up" the bridge interface (see also my previous message): # ifconfig bridge2 create # ifconfig bridge2 addm bge0 # ifconfig bridge2 bridge2: flags=8002 mtu 1500 ether ac:de:48:6d:e2:e9 priority 32768 hellotime 2 fwddelay 15 maxage 20 member: bge0 flags=3 # ifconfig bridge2 deletem bge0 # ifconfig bridge2 addm bge0 up # ifconfig bridge2 bridge2: flags=8043 mtu 1500 ether ac:de:48:6d:e2:e9 priority 32768 hellotime 2 fwddelay 15 maxage 20 member: bge0 flags=3 I.e. change your 'ifconfig bridge0 addm vr0' to 'ifconfig bridge0 addm vr0 up' and it should work. Or you can just do 'ifconfig bridge0 up' at any time. When you put ifconfig_bridge0="addm vr0" in rc.conf, the rc scripts will actually execute that 'ifconfig bridge0 addm vr0 up' - and when you use ifconfig to configure an IP address on an interface, it will silently do the "up" for you. --Per Hedeland