Date: Sat, 17 May 2025 08:15:26 +0300 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Kristof Provost <kp@freebsd.org> Cc: Marek Zarychta <zarychtam@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl>, Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com>, ivy@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: epair(4) Message-ID: <aCgbbnjr0QLs_923@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <2D38F889-E8C9-49A9-AA80-D5A46FDFFD02@FreeBSD.org> References: <20250515162552.9209B20E@slippy.cwsent.com> <20250515185919.87008219@slippy.cwsent.com> <45d0f49d-229b-46b4-af95-6e8c4c856661@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl> <2D38F889-E8C9-49A9-AA80-D5A46FDFFD02@FreeBSD.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 10:38:58PM +0200, Kristof Provost wrote: > As Lexi pointed out in another e-mail: users should assign addresses to the bridge, never to bridge member interfaces. > Could you, please, also explain why this is the requirement, besides stating that the configuration is invalid? Let me give some context there: for me, such config appears when I set up normal host, with the usual setting of IP address on a physical interface. Then some time later, realizing that I want to run a bhyve there as well, I need to add a bridge. But for situation where the host is remote and even without console access, it means to either keep the invalid config if IP address on interface, or blindly do the sensitive config update without a way to test it before reboot. So I at least want to understand why do I need to risk of making the machine non-reachable.home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?aCgbbnjr0QLs_923>