Re: epair(4)

Am 20.07.25 um 00:20 schrieb Dag-Erling Smørgrav:
> Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> writes:
>> qroxana <qroxana@protonmail.com> writes:
>>> What's the best practice for setting up bridge0 on a NFS root
>>> system?  [...]
>> That's an interesting problem that I don't think was even thought
>> about when bridge(4) was added to FreeBSD.  [...] I /think/ the tftp
>> boot path configures the interface addressing via kernel APIs, and
>> we'll need to undo it and flip it to a bridge.
> 
> This is not the only scenario where you might want to add a bridge to a
> configured system.  I think it would be useful to have a setting that
> causes all of an interface's addresses and routes to be moved to the
> bridge when the interface is added to it.

Instead of moving the interface address to the bridge, I think it would
be better to “hide” it and include any/all addresses of the constituent
interfaces in the bridge configuration (where possible and not in conflict).

This would allow the interfaces to retain (and later recover) their
configuration if the bridge is destroyed (which could be useful in scenarios
other than using an NFS root system that would benefit from such a feature).

My use case would be a temporarily started bhyve VM to occasionally run some
Windows applications, with a Tap device and a WiFi device with dynamic address
forming the bridge ...