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.
--
