From nobody Wed Jul 30 21:51:30 2025 X-Original-To: net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4bsmBW5lGMz634dT for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2025 21:51:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ivy@freebsd.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [96.47.72.132]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "freefall.freebsd.org", Issuer "R11" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4bsmBW51ZVz3fYD; Wed, 30 Jul 2025 21:51:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ivy@freebsd.org) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=freebsd.org; s=dkim; t=1753912291; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=AxX2Vtj5A5Oqu/gFSwE8GgrfytzaQW9KXqOQCuHjl00=; b=ZuW20ztL0QCLBWZAPSkdk/uYE+X2sM9DD97o/3VYSWhRcLz4BgYbiowig6T/p5EvJTh/Tg pQXYkO/iLPGDTzijQPtQJxEcMiuY7EZvMV1CQ/0LlJOv0yrrjj+sAE9uKOTTU+kP4ZOAwE IygDDT1F8+xkz7+AFrLZy/RhhmZovneTzx/2l99sf67Hx0V7giuwp/YYS8sCJ/uCtkR6d9 aP/NfP/Go8/76lzpXvSv0fvJWulBzc1xgecvUC6rRL8NTbjncTIUYRClpFSA2C7qj+Rw5H /dYpCFDnmMLnBGSqxbzSA0dSmdHfTdbW8dn7YXDmQ3nKNc5wNZkJzAx/NtlaBQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=freebsd.org; s=dkim; t=1753912291; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=AxX2Vtj5A5Oqu/gFSwE8GgrfytzaQW9KXqOQCuHjl00=; b=wXwdtEVD6XXYanGHVvmkynzfpTon4IAGwaOH4YyBEb5w5zFsPQUIJ04DHNuaRHgM44cGdl PqpSeOfNx7+7F6M94+qKw9g5GHZznYg/1QdDQJadqwVSjUYdQIYOtQBXslT+CEYex+gG5m OWuVjwJfthSNu4dUoy99Bt76Npa247wfwuDca3w+USChwxFweDS7CD2QcfB9qXfh00Ha97 zDJmDupa5bEyjp4o/zlsNGG1oj72wKT7O6BbuP8GflfTFIQwf9+p4H2+QkMyTgNiM30g+q I0kOmxetcsNu8y4YZGt8yv1+nNTOBETA1o/0qJKw1CRgW7U7UN+ZlrFjU919XA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx1.freebsd.org; none ARC-Seal: i=1; s=dkim; d=freebsd.org; t=1753912291; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=k4F1P6wO7Bq1DF5q/73weCFRgePoBNqNhgdQ93k7oDr2m9+Zbk/v9VTFiBuyQ66iECAcg4 HyFRgwTlk08hAOT5sPXjOrDhFoFJLPTmC0LGDuVSrq8rEQfsUjHRjMKATQyUJpCMUjeNbz egIsXbHqfPTTsNooxhLIQu6H/g3NXMnDif1/zWaa7w9A21dExWqnb/U08bTmHG/IzmMRkK TRpwTiX035iAmPh3bJTIzc0LN0hBHIXupj1ijaB16NmUFmMk/1wNiQ4MRmx/zY3GljyfL1 cIDTM4QsA1fy9LzuO0t/am0HzjZ/jxfWWiJwYLO7ho3xhZILVNFd4Pkrf7tJeQ== Received: by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1532) id 667DA241A9; Wed, 30 Jul 2025 21:51:31 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 22:51:30 +0100 From: Lexi Winter To: "Patrick M. Hausen" Cc: "net@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: vlan(4) and bridge(4) on same interface Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: "Patrick M. Hausen" , "net@freebsd.org" References: <83AAB529-4AA4-4C71-9B9E-9CD568128A67@punkt.de> List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="PhQqBRcrTep8ukdm" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: --PhQqBRcrTep8ukdm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Patrick M. Hausen: > > Am 30.07.2025 um 23:20 schrieb Lexi Winter : > > 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: >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > Fail early, fail hard. --PhQqBRcrTep8ukdm Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEABYKAB0WIQSyjTg96lp3RifySyn1nT63mIK/YAUCaIqT3gAKCRD1nT63mIK/ YGnKAP4g9j7ZYBNRiWTCvIlOlHOV6utAUmNgJRarvSTqWwLdaQD/Rnz7H/EsUYyI wG5Kyltxj6CmwyixamNoiCeJN9wMpgc= =EmE0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --PhQqBRcrTep8ukdm--