Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 23:30:05 +0200 From: Kristof Provost <kp@FreeBSD.org> To: Michael Grimm <trashcan@ellael.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: epair(4) Message-ID: <369F5F7C-F88E-4C92-9DE0-C0FB0E5EFD54@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <75A8047F-73E0-467F-8005-7CA1ADA09788@ellael.org> References: <20250515162552.9209B20E@slippy.cwsent.com> <20250515185919.87008219@slippy.cwsent.com> <45d0f49d-229b-46b4-af95-6e8c4c856661@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl> <2D38F889-E8C9-49A9-AA80-D5A46FDFFD02@FreeBSD.org> <6e33a247-4b2a-4f7c-8e1f-14a549db27cd@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl> <47624B57-16CA-4141-9761-A51F9E3F4078@FreeBSD.org> <75A8047F-73E0-467F-8005-7CA1ADA09788@ellael.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On 20 May 2025, at 22:13, Michael Grimm wrote: > Kristof Provost <kp@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> There’s no reason to ever assign IP addresses to member interfaces. > >> Again, ifconfig bridge0 inet 192.0.2.1/24 is perfectly okay and will >> continue to work. ifconfig bridge0 addm epair0a ; ifconfig epair0a >> inet 192.0.2.1/24 is not. > > I have read all mails in this and the other thread's mails and I am > still puzzled by the wording: > >> The documentation has had this warning for a long time: “If the >> bridge host needs an IP address, set it on the bridge interface, not >> on the member interfaces.“ > > Das "member interfaces" *include* or *exclude* the corresponding > epair0b part? > It does not. Typically you’d insert epair0b in a different vnet, but either way, it is not a member interface of the bridge, so it can have IP addresses assigned to it. — Kristof [-- Attachment #2 --] <!DOCTYPE html> <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/xhtml; charset=utf-8"> </head> <body><div style="font-family: sans-serif;"><div class="markdown" style="white-space: normal;"> <p dir="auto">On 20 May 2025, at 22:13, Michael Grimm wrote:</p> <blockquote style="margin: 0 0 5px; padding-left: 5px; border-left: 2px solid #136BCE; color: #136BCE;"> <p dir="auto">Kristof Provost <a href="mailto:kp@freebsd.org">kp@freebsd.org</a> wrote:</p> <blockquote style="margin: 0 0 5px; padding-left: 5px; border-left: 2px solid #136BCE; border-left-color: #4B89CF; color: #4B89CF;"> <p dir="auto">There’s no reason to ever assign IP addresses to member interfaces.</p> </blockquote> <blockquote style="margin: 0 0 5px; padding-left: 5px; border-left: 2px solid #136BCE; border-left-color: #4B89CF; color: #4B89CF;"> <p dir="auto">Again, ifconfig bridge0 inet 192.0.2.1/24 is perfectly okay and will continue to work. ifconfig bridge0 addm epair0a ; ifconfig epair0a inet 192.0.2.1/24 is not.</p> </blockquote> <p dir="auto">I have read all mails in this and the other thread's mails and I am still puzzled by the wording:</p> <blockquote style="margin: 0 0 5px; padding-left: 5px; border-left: 2px solid #136BCE; border-left-color: #4B89CF; color: #4B89CF;"> <p dir="auto">The documentation has had this warning for a long time: “If the bridge host needs an IP address, set it on the bridge interface, not on the member interfaces.“</p> </blockquote> <p dir="auto">Das "member interfaces" <em>include</em> or <em>exclude</em> the corresponding epair0b part?</p> </blockquote> <p dir="auto">It does not. Typically you’d insert epair0b in a different vnet, but either way, it is not a member interface of the bridge, so it can have IP addresses assigned to it.</p> <p dir="auto">—<br> Kristof</p> </div> </div> </body> </html>home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?369F5F7C-F88E-4C92-9DE0-C0FB0E5EFD54>