Bjoern A. Zeeb:
> Am I correct that if I do want to leave the untagged packets of a trunk
> connected to the bridge "untagged" I would still be able to configure
> the host IP on bridge0 without any need for "untagged" if no vlanfilter
> is in place?
if you aren't using 'vlanfilter', then you can'
Patrick M. Hausen:
> > Am 30.07.2025 um 23:20 schrieb Lexi Winter :
> > the situation i'm talking about is when you have a vlan(4) configured on
> > an interface, and the underlying interface (not the vlan interface) is
> > also in a bridge, for example:
>
> But
Patrick M. Hausen:
> In that case a valid configuration would be:
>
> VLAN 1 on igb0: igb0.1
> VLAN 2 on igb0: igb0.2
>
> VLAN 1 on igb1: igb1.1
> VLAN 2 on igb1: igb1.2
>
> bridge1: igb0.1 igb1.1
> bridge2: igb0.2 igb2.2
>
> All layer 3 configuration, all packet filtering, etc. on the bridge
Vladimir B. Grebenschikov:
> % ifconfig ix0 description "trunked uplink"
> % ifconfig ix1 description "another trunked link"
> % ifconfig bridge0 create addm ix0 ix1
> % ifconfig bridge0.100 create description "Host interface here"
>
> so far everything fine - normal usage, bridge handels trunked
Bjoern A. Zeeb:
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2025, Lexi Winter wrote:
> > currently we allow users to create a vlan and a bridge on the same
> > interface, like this:
> >
> > % ifconfig ix0.100 create
> > % ifconfig bridge0 create addm ix0
> >
> > i am aware
hello,
currently we allow users to create a vlan and a bridge on the same
interface, like this:
% ifconfig ix0.100 create
% ifconfig bridge0 create addm ix0
i am aware that some people are using this in production, but because it
doesn't work properly[0], i would like to forbid this configuratio
Bjoern A. Zeeb:
> Now there are use cases that duing the liftime of a boot I need to add
> a bridge interface to a vlanN + fanout:
> physical interface
> +--- vlan1 --- bridge0 --- other interface[s]
> +--- vlan2
> +--- vlan3 --- bridge1 --- other interface[s]
>
> And t
void:
> I've found ifconfig_bxe0_ipv6="inet6 accept_rtadv" breaks bridging
> on a dual stack interface in unless some manual hoops are jumped through.
>
> net.link.bridge.member_ifaddrs is the default ("0") here.
>[...]
> Adding ifconfig_bxe0_ipv6="inet6 accept_rtadv" and then rebooting causes th
FreeBSD User:
> net.link.bridge.inherit_mac: 1
> [...]
>
> ether 4c:52:62:2b:05:eb
> inet6 fe80::5a9c:fcff:fe00:393a%bridge0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x6
i was able to reproduce this:
# sysctl net.link.bridge.inherit_mac=1
net.link.bridge.inherit_mac: 0 -> 1
# ifconfig bridge1 create
void:
> On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 11:33:50AM +0100, Lexi Winter wrote:
> > in short, following this commit...
> >
> > b61850c4e6f "bridge(4): default net.link.bridge.member_ifaddrs to false"
> > https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/commit/?id=b61850c4e6f6b0f21b36da723
Paul Vixie:
> If we move all member ifaddrs to the bridge itself, then will arp
> requests always have to be broadcast on all member interfaces? If so
> this is intolerable from a security perspective, a complete
> nonstarter.
i believe Patrick Hausen already answered your original question, but t
Dag-Erling Smørgrav:
> Lexi Winter writes:
> > i have proposed a patch to merge traceroute6 into traceroute, so that
> > traceroute supports both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses:
> >
> > https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-src/pull/1647
>
> I've only skimmed the
hello,
i have proposed a patch to merge traceroute6 into traceroute, so that
traceroute supports both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses:
https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-src/pull/1647
jlduran@ has proposed an alternative approach to achieve the same thing
which is mentioned in the PR comments.
any feed
Lexi Winter:
> bridge_input() also does a second list walk in GRAB_OUR_PACKETS to find
> traffic destined for the local host, which we could avoid with a sysctl
> to ignore Ethernet traffic for MAC addresses other than the bridge
> itself. this would break configurations where IP a
Matthew Grooms:
> > over the last few days i have been doing a bit of work on VLAN filtering
> > for bridge(4), which i thought i'd mention here in case anyone is
> > interested. the purpose of this is to extend the existing bridge VLAN
> > support to make it more generally useful.
>
> Looks awes
hello,
over the last few days i have been doing a bit of work on VLAN filtering
for bridge(4), which i thought i'd mention here in case anyone is
interested. the purpose of this is to extend the existing bridge VLAN
support to make it more generally useful.
the full changeset / diff is available
On 24/10/2024 00:43, Navdeep Parhar wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 11:21 PM Lexi Winter <mailto:l...@le-fay.org>> wrote:
however, trying to assign an IP address causes immediate problems:
root@lily:~ # ifconfig cxlv0 inet6 2001:8b0:aab5:7::10/64
root@lily:~ # Oct 23 06:1
hello,
i'm trying to configure a cxlv(4) device, which is a VF of a Chelsio
T540-CR on a host running bhyve.
host: FreeBSD 15.0-CURRENT #3 lf/main-n269068-2cff93ced1d: Wed Oct 23
02:48:20 BST 2024
guest: FreeBSD 15.0-CURRENT #2 lf/main-n269067-56dd459904b: Sat Oct 19
18:36:40 BST 2024
the
On 29/09/2024 07:58, void wrote:
Surprisingly, freebsd guest performance is about 1/3rd of the line speed.
Do some sysctls need to be tuned in freebsd specifically for when it is
in a guest context?
i tested this here and cannot reproduce the problem:
1023!ragweed ~% iperf3-darwin -c iris.ede
Scott:
> I'm never sure whether to respond to sophistry and rhetoric, but why not,
> let's play:
my intention with this post was not to engage in sophistry, but to
explain (or justify) the reasoning behind my proposal to remove
RIP/RIPng, since you seemed to be asking for more details on that.
i
Scott:
> I use RIPv2 for it's simplicity and small memory and CPU requirements. It
> has its place and shouldn't be considered "legacy" despite its shortcomings.
> It's not uncommon for vendors like Cisco to produce "basic" feature sets of
> IOS that do not include any link-state protocols.
Jessica Clarke:
> On 4 May 2024, at 16:34, Lexi Winter wrote:
> Do we need to care about supporting (/ do we currently support)
> historical non-contiguous netmasks? At a glance the CIDR code doesn’t
> handle that and will stop at the first 0, so changing to that by
> default w
hi,
i've just submitted this PR:
https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-src/pull/1216
which contains this commit:
commit 57d273c90ee1c17446236aba25ed0bd291c4f126 (HEAD -> lf/main,
hemlock/lf/main)
Author: Lexi Winter
Date: Sat May 4 16:11:21 2024 +0100
ifconfig(8): change de
hi,
running: FreeBSD 15.0-CURRENT #35 lf/main-n269047-3466614a5454: Tue Apr
30 03:48:53 BST 2024
srcma...@daphne.eden.le-fay.org:/src/obj/src/freebsd/lf/main/amd64.amd64/sys/LF
i have a host with a single vnet jail.
the host has an epair interface:
# ifconfig epair0a
epair0a: flags=1008843 metr
Paul Procacci:
> I'm assigning VF's to bhyve with pci passthru.
[...]
> Given this, I figured the best option would be to set the VLAN on the VF on
> the host prior to handing it off to the bhyve instance effectively enabling
> transparent vlans.
[...]
> Has anyone done this? Does anyone have any
[note: this is a copy of a mail i sent this to arch@, but someone
suggested also asking net@ about this.]
hello,
currently FreeBSD ships routed(8) and route6d(8) which implement the RIP
resp. RIPng routing protocols.
many years ago, it was fairly common for hosts to run these protocols to
get th
hello,
if someone had a chance to review this change to netpfil/pf:
https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-src/pull/1157
i would appreciate that.
thanks, lexi.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
27 matches
Mail list logo
