From nobody Thu May 22 21:06:46 2025 X-Original-To: freebsd-current@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4b3LSz6phnz5vx0L for ; Thu, 22 May 2025 21:06:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pmh@hausen.com) Received: from mail2.pluspunkthosting.de (mail2.pluspunkthosting.de [217.29.33.228]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4b3LSz2j4bz3qv1 for ; Thu, 22 May 2025 21:06:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pmh@hausen.com) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none Received: from smtpclient.apple (87.138.185.145) by mail2.pluspunkthosting.de (Axigen) with (ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPSA id 29C7C3; Thu, 22 May 2025 23:06:57 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-current List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3826.600.51.1.1\)) Subject: Re: epair(4) From: "Patrick M. Hausen" In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 22 May 2025 23:06:46 +0200 Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20250515162552.9209B20E@slippy.cwsent.com> <20250515185919.87008219@slippy.cwsent.com> <45d0f49d-229b-46b4-af95-6e8c4c856661@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl> <932111f8-f5ca-46d1-9f66-983f80f6116b@protected-networks.net> <8DCF0DAB-5EE5-4FEF-8CCC-1D7AF971BA8C@hausen.com> To: void X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3826.600.51.1.1) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4b3LSz2j4bz3qv1 X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:16188, ipnet:217.29.32.0/20, country:DE] X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Hi all, > Am 22.05.2025 um 22:15 schrieb void : > 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=