Date: Thu, 22 May 2025 23:57:27 +0200 From: Marek Zarychta <zarychtam@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl> To: "Patrick M. Hausen" <pmh@hausen.com>, void <void@f-m.fm> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: epair(4) Message-ID: <1eb27b2a-c05a-470f-ba1b-6730e39cc1d8@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl> In-Reply-To: <BF948D69-38A8-40A5-A0BB-ECD8EB47CF05@hausen.com> References: <20250515162552.9209B20E@slippy.cwsent.com> <20250515185919.87008219@slippy.cwsent.com> <45d0f49d-229b-46b4-af95-6e8c4c856661@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl> <aCeXdxeeWQs_Sz77@ragweed.eden.le-fay.org> <932111f8-f5ca-46d1-9f66-983f80f6116b@protected-networks.net> <aCeeSQY-fMH7l3XS@ragweed.eden.le-fay.org> <aC5sfOtgG79EwIUZ@int21h> <8DCF0DAB-5EE5-4FEF-8CCC-1D7AF971BA8C@hausen.com> <aC-F7jAvS4so01jn@int21h> <BF948D69-38A8-40A5-A0BB-ECD8EB47CF05@hausen.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
W dniu 22.05.2025 o 23:06, Patrick M. Hausen pisze: > Hi all, > >> Am 22.05.2025 um 22:15 schrieb void <void@f-m.fm>: >> I think, from what other list members have written also, that many did as I did:- looked at the virtualization part of the handbook, found all what >> was required there to get started, and thats it. They would probably not >> (as I didn't) see the need to look at the advanced networking section if they >> were only using a bridge with bhyve or similar. > I have come to realise that there are two sides to this issue, both equally valid. > > How to configure and use if_bridge(4) correctly was documented from day one > or very shortly thereafter. > > But still - for reasons I do not quite understand - more than one platform/wrapper > development ignored that documentation. > > FreeNAS/TrueNAS surely did and from your posts I read that more jail/VM orchestration > tools also "do it wrong". > > So I agree - we cannot place the burden on the users with a: > > "The documentation was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a > disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.'" > > Which I am prone to do occasionally. Sorry about that. > > The technical discussion is simple. An IP address on a bridge member never > was supported and never will be. > > The change that is currently discussed simply prohibits a setup that never > was supported in the first place with the good intention to save people from > foot shooting. > > I support your suggestion to *somehow* make some more noise about that. > > I have been screaming at walls for years about the broken setup of bridges > in TrueNAS on the iX forum to no avail. Tickets in JIRA closed without action ... > Stuff like that. > > Kind regards, > Patrick > I think enough noise has been made. Regardless of its cause and intentions, this kind of noise isn't good for the FreeBSD community. I hadn’t planned to post further in this thread, but I’ve noticed the debate rising again like a phoenix from the ashes. Maybe it’s best to let it burn itself out. Now is the time to focus on more productive efforts - improving tools like vm-bhyve, helping users with migration paths, and making sure the documentation is consistent and accurately reflects the current state of affairs. Most importantly, there is a need to show the broader community (or at least not hide) that alternatives are available, such as ng_bridge(4), which allows for quickly setting up a network bridge for fast spinning up a bhyve VM for testing or running a VNET jail for short-term use. Cheers Marekhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1eb27b2a-c05a-470f-ba1b-6730e39cc1d8>