Re: CURRENT: can not add device to bridge: ifconfig: BRDGADD igb0: Invalid argument

2025-05-20 Thread Lexi Winter
A FreeBSD User: > I need a IPv6 prefix on bridge0. With the "wrong/faulty" concept I > simply used > > rtsold_flags="-iu igb0" > > within /etc/rc.conf. Changing this line to > rtsold_flags="-iu bridge0" while bridge0 is up and running doesn't work, > neither does "rtsol > bridge0" show any resu

Re: epair(4)

2025-05-20 Thread Michael Grimm
Kristof Provost wrote: > On 20 May 2025, at 22:13, Michael Grimm wrote: >> Does "member interfaces" include or exclude the corresponding epair0b part? > It does not. Typically you’d insert epair0b in a different vnet, but either > way, it is not a member interface of the bridge, so it can have

Re: epair(4)

2025-05-20 Thread Kristof Provost
On 20 May 2025, at 22:13, Michael Grimm wrote: Kristof Provost wrote: There’s no reason to ever assign IP addresses to member interfaces. Again, ifconfig bridge0 inet 192.0.2.1/24 is perfectly okay and will continue to work. ifconfig bridge0 addm epair0a ; ifconfig epair0a inet 192.0.2.1/2

Re: epair(4)

2025-05-20 Thread Michael Grimm
Kristof Provost wrote: > There’s no reason to ever assign IP addresses to member interfaces. > Again, ifconfig bridge0 inet 192.0.2.1/24 is perfectly okay and will continue > to work. ifconfig bridge0 addm epair0a ; ifconfig epair0a inet 192.0.2.1/24 > is not. I have read all mails in this an

Re: Just a question about sys/kern/subr_witness.c where witness_watch may be flipped to -1

2025-05-20 Thread Mark Millard
On May 20, 2025, at 08:34, Dennis Clarke wrote: > On 5/20/25 01:51, Mark Millard wrote: >> Dennis Clarke wrote on >> Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 02:33:58 UTC: >>> Just an odd message to see on the console : >>> >>> # witness_lock_list_get: witness exhausted >>> >>> Looking at https://cgit.free

Re: Just a question about sys/kern/subr_witness.c where witness_watch may be flipped to -1

2025-05-20 Thread Dennis Clarke
On 5/20/25 01:51, Mark Millard wrote: Dennis Clarke wrote on Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 02:33:58 UTC: Just an odd message to see on the console : # witness_lock_list_get: witness exhausted Looking at https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/tree/sys/kern/subr_witness.c it seems that the comment at lin

Re: CURRENT: can not add device to bridge: ifconfig: BRDGADD igb0: Invalid argument

2025-05-20 Thread A FreeBSD User
Am Tage des Herren Tue, 20 May 2025 11:32:57 +0200 "Patrick M. Hausen" schrieb: > Sorry, missed a detail: > > > Am 20.05.2025 um 11:29 schrieb Patrick M. Hausen : > > > > Hi all, > > > >> Am 20.05.2025 um 11:24 schrieb A FreeBSD User : > >> I need a IPv6 prefix on bridge0. With the "wrong/f

Re: CURRENT: can not add device to bridge: ifconfig: BRDGADD igb0: Invalid argument

2025-05-20 Thread A FreeBSD User
Am Tage des Herren Tue, 20 May 2025 11:29:24 +0200 "Patrick M. Hausen" schrieb: > Hi all, > > > Am 20.05.2025 um 11:24 schrieb A FreeBSD User : > > I need a IPv6 prefix on bridge0. With the "wrong/faulty" concept I simply > > used > > > > rtsold_flags="-iu igb0" > > > > within /etc/rc.conf.

Re: CURRENT: can not add device to bridge: ifconfig: BRDGADD igb0: Invalid argument

2025-05-20 Thread Patrick M. Hausen
Hi all, > Am 20.05.2025 um 11:24 schrieb A FreeBSD User : > I need a IPv6 prefix on bridge0. With the "wrong/faulty" concept I simply > used > > rtsold_flags="-iu igb0" > > within /etc/rc.conf. Changing this line to > rtsold_flags="-iu bridge0" while bridge0 is up and running doesn't work, >

Re: CURRENT: can not add device to bridge: ifconfig: BRDGADD igb0: Invalid argument

2025-05-20 Thread Patrick M. Hausen
Sorry, missed a detail: > Am 20.05.2025 um 11:29 schrieb Patrick M. Hausen : > > Hi all, > >> Am 20.05.2025 um 11:24 schrieb A FreeBSD User : >> I need a IPv6 prefix on bridge0. With the "wrong/faulty" concept I simply >> used >> >> rtsold_flags="-iu igb0" >> >> within /etc/rc.conf. Changin

Re: CURRENT: can not add device to bridge: ifconfig: BRDGADD igb0: Invalid argument

2025-05-20 Thread A FreeBSD User
Am Tage des Herren Mon, 19 May 2025 11:22:31 +0200 "Patrick M. Hausen" schrieb: > Hi all, > > > Am 19.05.2025 um 10:53 schrieb Lexi Winter : > > > > the basic problem here is that putting IP addresses on a bridge member > > is a layering violation and it's just not reasonable (or even possible)