Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 22:51:30 +0100 From: Lexi Winter <ivy@freebsd.org> To: "Patrick M. Hausen" <hausen@punkt.de> Cc: "net@freebsd.org" <net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: vlan(4) and bridge(4) on same interface Message-ID: <aIqT4lOqRZD8kOCn@freefall.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <F5B57005-EFFA-4DDA-AB0D-503E04D6A23D@punkt.de> References: <aIo0kN79B6JymlAh@freefall.freebsd.org> <s124p67o-os20-16s9-n227-599184n43s7o@yvfgf.mnoonqbm.arg> <aIqDoyIbOf9VNo3d@freefall.freebsd.org> <83AAB529-4AA4-4C71-9B9E-9CD568128A67@punkt.de> <aIqMp6LhOMK1LEj7@freefall.freebsd.org> <F5B57005-EFFA-4DDA-AB0D-503E04D6A23D@punkt.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] Patrick M. Hausen: > > Am 30.07.2025 um 23:20 schrieb Lexi Winter <ivy@freebsd.org>: > > the situation i'm talking about is when you have a vlan(4) configured on > > an interface, and the underlying interface (not the vlan interface) is > > also in a bridge, for example: > > But that configuration has always been illegal and known to fail > in weird ways. Just like putting a layer 3 address on a bridge member > interface. > > So I still wonder what the problem seems to be. it seems like you agree with me that we shouldn't allow this. the problem is that we *do* currently allow this, so what i'm proposing is that we disallow it and produce an error message instead. does that sound reasonable to you or have i misunderstood? > But why of course. It was never supposed to work and getting a decent > error message is better than weird and hard to debug failure scenarios. > > Fail early, fail hard. [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEABYKAB0WIQSyjTg96lp3RifySyn1nT63mIK/YAUCaIqT3gAKCRD1nT63mIK/ YGnKAP4g9j7ZYBNRiWTCvIlOlHOV6utAUmNgJRarvSTqWwLdaQD/Rnz7H/EsUYyI wG5Kyltxj6CmwyixamNoiCeJN9wMpgc= =EmE0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?aIqT4lOqRZD8kOCn>