Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 19:12:08 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_HEADS_UP=3A_15=2E0-CURRENT=2C_change_to_bridge=284?= =?UTF-8?Q?=29_might_break_some_network_configurations_with_=E2=80=9CInvalid?= =?UTF-8?B?IGFyZ3VtZW504oCd?= Message-ID: <6433db6a-e106-42ee-9276-c53b56a13bd1@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <aC3q3Sj20Rcc49nW@int21h> References: <aCsJDjfCNk5pA59c@ragweed.eden.le-fay.org> <aC3l356uZYcPDx_h@int21h> <3647A8FC-FED1-4539-8BDE-CACCF6A5FC0A@FreeBSD.org> <aC3q3Sj20Rcc49nW@int21h>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On 21/05/2025 18:01, void wrote: > This bhyve host was set up following instructions from the bhyve section of the > handbook. I've just checked and no mention is made of the > new requirement in section 24.7.1 of the handbook at > https://freebsd.org/handbook > > So, if a lot of people run bhyve guests as described > then more people are going to be affected than one might initially > presume. Just in case, here is the full Handbook link: https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/handbook/virtualization/#virtualization-bhyve-prep I am quite sure that a lot of hosts with VMs are configured that way. Mine are. And I saw on developers@ other people reporting the same kind of setup. I must admit that in my rational mind I understand that a bridge is a bridge, but I always felt that a bridge combining several physical interfaces (and thus physical LANs) and/or maybe some VLAN interfaces is different from a bridge that combines a single physical or VLAN interface with several virtual interfaces (like tap or epair) that are connected to VMs. I always knew to assign an IP address to the first kind of a bridge, never to its members. But in the second case, it felt that the physical interface is the primary interface. It's *the* network interface. It must be configured fully. And the bridge is "ephemeral". Maybe I won't start any VMs and won't configure the bridge at all. Why always have that bridge? Or why change the main networking configuration when I decide to create that "VM bridge"? And this view is reflected in Handbook and also in some external tools for VM management. Take for instance vm-bhyve which seems to be a pretty popular "front-end" to bhyve. Its quick start has these steps which are equivalent to what Handbook has: 7. vm switch create public 8. vm switch add public em0 Seeing both sides of the things I am not sure what to propose here. But I certainly do not enjoy the thought that I need to change a host's network configuration in case I just want to run a VM and to bridge it to the LAN. Or I'd have to pre-configure a bridge (with a single member, initially) on every host where I might want to configure a bridged VM later. vm-bhyve links: - https://github.com/freebsd/vm-bhyve - https://github.com/churchers/vm-bhyve/wiki/Virtual-Switches -- Andriy Gaponhelp
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6433db6a-e106-42ee-9276-c53b56a13bd1>