From nobody Wed Sep 10 08:07:22 2025 X-Original-To: freebsd-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 4cMCwL3RqZz67GMh for ; Wed, 10 Sep 2025 08:07:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) Received: from soth.netfence.it (mailserver.netfence.it [78.134.96.152]) (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 (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mailserver.netfence.it", Issuer "R11" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4cMCwK3ntQz3LGQ for ; Wed, 10 Sep 2025 08:07:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=netfence.it; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of ml@netfence.it designates 78.134.96.152 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=ml@netfence.it Received: from [10.1.2.18] (alamar.local.netfence.it [10.1.2.18]) (authenticated bits=0) by soth.netfence.it (8.18.1/8.17.2) with ESMTPSA id 58A87MCn065041 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 10 Sep 2025 10:07:22 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) X-Authentication-Warning: soth.netfence.it: Host alamar.local.netfence.it [10.1.2.18] claimed to be [10.1.2.18] Message-ID: <24b8c39e-b1a3-4cd3-accc-c86a03e21689@netfence.it> Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 10:07:22 +0200 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 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird From: Andrea Venturoli Subject: Help with bridge and new IP requirements To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spamd-Bar: -- X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.95 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.99)[-0.992]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[netfence.it,none]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:78.134.96.152]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.16)[-0.158]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; ASN(0.00)[asn:35612, ipnet:78.134.0.0/17, country:IT]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; HAS_XAW(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-net@freebsd.org]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-net@freebsd.org]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4cMCwK3ntQz3LGQ Hello. I've read that assigning an IP to bridged interfaces is deprecated and the configuration should be altered. I've got a complicated setup, on a 14.3p1 box, involing LACP, bridges, VLANs, CARP, jails and ipfw. Simplifying a bit, I have: > cloned_interfaces="bridge0 lagg0 tap0 vlan1" > ifconfig_em0="up" > ifconfig_em1="up" > ifconfig_lagg0="up laggproto lacp laggport em0 laggport em1" > ifconfig_vlan1="inet 192.168.1.15 netmask 255.255.255.0 vlan 1 vlandev lagg0" > ifconfig_bridge0="up addm vlan1" If I understand correctly, I need to change this to: > cloned_interfaces="bridge0 lagg0 tap0 vlan1" > ifconfig_em0="up" > ifconfig_em1="up" > ifconfig_lagg0="up laggproto lacp laggport em0 laggport em1" > ifconfig_vlan1="up vlan 1 vlandev lagg0" > ifconfig_bridge0="inet 192.168.1.15 netmask 255.255.255.0 addm vlan1" Is this correct? AFAICT this works, except for ipfw. I have: > # sysctl -a|grep -E "bridge.*(pfil|ipfw)" > net.link.bridge.ipfw: 0 > net.link.bridge.pfil_local_phys: 1 > net.link.bridge.pfil_member: 1 > net.link.bridge.ipfw_arp: 0 > net.link.bridge.pfil_bridge: 0 > net.link.bridge.pfil_onlyip: 1 So I'd excpect I would need to use rules on the member interfaces (e.g. vlan1), as I've always done. Yet I see packets are being blocked on bridge0. E.g.: > kernel: ipfw: 1997 Deny ICMP:8.0 192.168.1.18 192.168.1.15 in via bridge0 Am I misunderstanding the meaning of net.link.bridge.pfil_member and net.link.bridge.pfil_bridge? Or am I making any other mistake? Should I just give up and use bridge0 in ipfw rules? (This, at first, seems a loss to me, but maybe I'm wrong). bye & Thanks av.