From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Fri Nov 24 09:52:08 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F17DFDDE6CE for ; Fri, 24 Nov 2017 09:52:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from v.maffione@gmail.com) Received: from mail-qt0-x233.google.com (mail-qt0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A91E76D36D for ; Fri, 24 Nov 2017 09:52:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from v.maffione@gmail.com) Received: by mail-qt0-x233.google.com with SMTP id i40so19502623qti.8 for ; Fri, 24 Nov 2017 01:52:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=5pESuRe9D5fcfq5eTUPcjS0z8ZRtzrHIhey92geYkpQ=; b=YdNmERSHOxDS/V18Efv9Z9ateIZwoVubBSs83edGhsnf35jW/h1KVr0WjSjXR/ivIC a7bIUdmD4NNuaPRKlh8lf3vbyfmt0GlDQPJ6+DQYS4k719L2qadFhLGoBefwBVXcYj3x cERw5ls2eBncSUMYMWGtxeviWqa85Y/2M4lCO9duJEW+VS1toIF0DCyx69bSHKN8MCyE 5Y1ECbmVd0RoLyoN2mfJm6I9xdOPlWb7nh9jYtS7WqoiHeYO+Y5I4+ve0RaO/mutGpxj VdSTVcfY+++3am5KjgefMXv9lwGylxrDm2A2mjNyyYbe3AjMVQUDIIIawF/vW4MZmvnR 8+Cg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=5pESuRe9D5fcfq5eTUPcjS0z8ZRtzrHIhey92geYkpQ=; b=ehLK70XwvGTLWuYTTjGlSyoPUUgIn50NQ2vMLbeZNaHGCle+oX3vahrMFwkwK9uUZ1 BKDY8cwYhUJjKPrPkkPTIcHDjWvJGS/N5tS7rHOxmhfs1pCRTgUtUCLKOVyNE15LFPgu 9K9PaYBQjw4B5RDGRFU8Buu5UzfmqPhzFc2Q1t80eXhAs+2yRb2Pnb3QGHgr4KAfzmg6 LoXsPPl1ZZk/aGK9UEHtlSrJ9kSEcsa23RQwBLQofojvWdj5ckvhuE+bSgzr6/nXbZXn 43hn7s2+aT/H3fnmOtFl2pvhJDAmXcsKA2plHBy43jv/vOziTYbtbH1AHZ/9JybCFYSF D00g== X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX665J+SV3vVyjbUU2249QI9PpPBgtICKFcpndpsCB5V2RMQRLEx +YX1IE/R7C/TALDDD7ifI6yq3dxyHuUF+dror/I= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMbLTiny70Biey0QpfPgUF1fVr0sch0nOgiZN/0wpEJEYaWDYVZj71jSxX2k8iPF2U7tG24SPcz7rvBcwFJgp5c= X-Received: by 10.200.40.189 with SMTP id i58mr44030375qti.128.1511517127671; Fri, 24 Nov 2017 01:52:07 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.174.5 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Nov 2017 01:52:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <17132d5f-0708-04a4-9a82-3a1afb49d19b@netfence.it> References: <59452bf1-25fb-970d-1d8d-5ca1463da4fd@netfence.it> <5A0DD27A.3010304@grosbein.net> <17132d5f-0708-04a4-9a82-3a1afb49d19b@netfence.it> From: Vincenzo Maffione Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2017 10:52:07 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [SOLVED] Re: bridge0 not working when cable disconnected To: Andrea Venturoli Cc: Eugene Grosbein , "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.25 X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2017 09:52:09 -0000 Hi, The VM IP is assigned to the emulated interface inside the guest OS (e.g. vtnet0). It would not make sense to assign an IP to tap0, and I'm quite sure bhyve doesn't do that. If tap0 is attached to bridge0 (which is normally the case, and I guess it's your case), there is no reason for tap0 to have an IP (because it's a data port of an L2 switch). If you give an IP to tap0 it's not dangerous, but there is no need to do that. (The only use-case for giving an IP to tap0 I can think of is when you don't attach tap0 do any bridge, and you use tap0 as a peer-to-peer link for applications on your host to communicate with applications in the VM. But nobody does that since you can do the same with the bridge0 interface, which can be used to talk to multiple VMs, not just one). Cheers, Vincenzo 2017-11-24 8:24 GMT+01:00 Andrea Venturoli : > On 11/16/17 19:01, Eugene Grosbein wrote: > > If you add an interface to a bridge, you should remove all IP addresses >> from it >> and assign them to the bridge itself instead. And you will be fine. >> > > Thanks. > > In fact, assigning the base IP and all the jails to bridge0, instead of > re0 solved. > I still think bhyve assigns the VM's IP to tap0, but that doesn't seam to > be a problem. > > bye > av. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > -- Vincenzo Maffione