Re: epair(4)

On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 09:21:29PM +0100, Lexi Winter wrote:

>i am not sure about this.  i admit i have not done a survey :-) however,
>i believe most people using jails or bhyve are not affected.  the
>Handbook is clear about the correct way to configure this[0], so people
>who followed the handbook to configure their jails or bhyve VMs should
>not run into this problem.

Your belief that most people using bhyve and jails would be unaffected
is, I think, misplaced. The handbook has only been clear about
the "correct way to configure" this since around the middle of last year [1]
https://web.archive.org/web/20240725082825/https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/handbook/virtualization/ in 24.6.13

Prior to that, like https://web.archive.org/web/20240406173929/https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/handbook/virtualization/ in 24.6.10 or in https://web.archive.org/web/20210301113601/https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/handbook/virtualization/#virtualization-host-bhyve 
in 22.7.9 there's no mention of the now-correct way of configuring bridge
in a bhyve context.

Maybe it'd be an idea to have section 24.7.13 immediately following 24.7.1
in the (latest) handbook and also a note to make it clear that members of a bridge 
cannot, as just members, be individually assigned an ip.

[1] relevant because typically bhyve hosts are high-uptime hosts.
     Conceivable that the network won't typically be thought to have to be 
     reconfigured after an update/upgrade.
--