Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 14:05:42 +0100 From: Lexi Winter <ivy@FreeBSD.org> To: Kevin Bowling <kevin.bowling@kev009.com> Cc: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com>, src-committers@freebsd.org, dev-commits-src-all@freebsd.org, dev-commits-src-main@freebsd.org Subject: Re: git: b61850c4e6f6 - main - bridge(4): default net.link.bridge.member_ifaddrs to false Message-ID: <aCc4Jto75qyH68-g@ragweed.eden.le-fay.org> In-Reply-To: <CAK7dMtA9owacY2W%2Be-U2p-8Y8=S2Y9FanX%2Bv55c6w68it%2BWe1g@mail.gmail.com> References: <202505150004.54F04FhR046897@gitrepo.freebsd.org> <20250515185812.AE47677@slippy.cwsent.com> <aCcs1yD6T9ybzy6N@ragweed.eden.le-fay.org> <CAK7dMtA9owacY2W%2Be-U2p-8Y8=S2Y9FanX%2Bv55c6w68it%2BWe1g@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--8w7JQOuCs6iA9ocd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Kevin Bowling: > On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 5:17=E2=80=AFAM Lexi Winter <ivy@freebsd.org> wro= te: > > is "epair0a" also in a bridge? if so, this is intentional. > Hmm, can you clarify what you mean? I think that is a common > configuration, it is mentioned in epair(4). basically there are two supported configurations: - epair, with an IP address, not in a bridge (e.g., routed access configuration) - epair, in a bridge, without an IP address (e.g., layer 2 access configuration) both of these configurations are fine and are still supported. there is also a third, secret configuration: - epair, with an IP address, in a bridge. this third configuration has never worked properly for various reasons, so the change in b61850c4e6f6 is to prevent people from doing it and ending up with a subtly broken network. the reason it's a sysctl is that some people are currently using this configuration and may not be able to migrate immediately. this is *not* meant to be a long-term solution and i intend to remove it prior to 16.0-RELEASE. the correct fix here (rather than enabling the sysctl) is to configure the IP addresses on the bridge instead of the epair, which is now documented in bridge(4). (this applies to all types of network interface that can live in bridges, not just epairs.) there's also a thread on current@ about this[0] with some additional discussion; i didn't notice when i replied here since i read my personal email first. [0] https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-current/2025-May/007602.html --8w7JQOuCs6iA9ocd Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEABYKAB0WIQSyjTg96lp3RifySyn1nT63mIK/YAUCaCc4JQAKCRD1nT63mIK/ YGg1AP0bVXn6/rAzik760GEVNe7w2O3X3tdWFHjV2vw1m1weogD/XIpZiVGLwhQ7 BIhhIqEA8PB0XLMVH/B0viXkyDdkfws= =rVqJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --8w7JQOuCs6iA9ocd--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?aCc4Jto75qyH68-g>