Re: Simplify bridge(4)

[David Brownlee <abs%absd.org@localhost>]

On 15 February 2016 at 04:01, Ryota Ozaki <ozaki-r%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 7:19 AM, Mouse <mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost> wrote:
>> Sounds to me as though the most sensible way to model that would be to
>> give the address to the bridge interface itself.
>>
>> I don't think I've tried that.  If it does not work, is there any
>> particular reason to add vether(4) rather than making it work?  If it
>> does work, what functionality would vether(4) provide over it?
>
> It's a design choice. FreeBSD adopts extending bridge(4) to assign
> IP addresses and OpenBSD adopts vether(4). Both work and neither
> is wrong.
>
> I prefer vether's approach because it keeps bridge(4) simple still
> providing the same functionality of extending bridge itself.

I think NetBSD supporting vether would also fix a couple of (at least
interesting to some :) related use cases.

a) Single interface machine running xen which needs the xen VMs on an
internal network with dhcp and VPN/NAT on the external interface (this
becomes quickly brain twisting and the solution is to plug in an
additional ethernet card, just to act as the bridge endpoint)

b) Running an emulator (which expects to tap onto an ethernet
interface) on a machine with only a wifi interface