Hi all,
> Am 22.05.2025 um 22:15 schrieb void <v...@f-m.fm>:
> 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
