Using the new bridges of FreeBSD 15 (opens in new tab)

From TFA:

  They have also soft-deprecated the ability to have any layer 3 addresses on member interfaces which makes it behave like a real hardware switch. The net.link.bridge.member_ifaddrs sysctl controls this behavior and it will be removed in FreeBSD 16.0-RELEASE, same as if set to zero.

I'm a little bit uncertain. This means that the bridge may have one or more L3 addresses assigned to it, but the interfaces attached to that bridge may not, right?

If that's right, how does that interact with things like Linux's veth pairs? [0] Can the half of the pair that's not a member of the bridge have an IP address?

[0] I assume something like that exists in FreeBSD-land.

When this settles down, I look forward to all of jail/iojail, Sylve, Bastille, Bhyve documenting this in a mutually consistent manner. As it stands, I have managed to completely knot my brain over the abstractions, what is happening. It's me, not the systems, but I think there is a little bit of "meh, I understand it, so it must be obvious to anyone smart" going on, and alas, I am not smart, and I get confused easily.

I'm in bastille atm, but have been in all of them and TrueNAS core. and libvirt over on the other unix.

> -tso4 -tso6 -vlanhwfilter -vlanmtu -vlanhwtso -vlanhwtag -vlanhwcsum -lro

Whys the author disabling tso and lro? Whats the motivation?

I'm not familiar with the other flags.

Bhyve bridges are inefficient: every packet traverses NIC → CPU → bridge → VM, adding unnecessary copies that kill throughput. Switching to SR-IOV eliminated that overhead and I saturated the 10 GbE link.

I for one welcome and applaud any progress on the bsd front,and this seems to be huge.

Why sudden surge of FreeBSD-related posts?

Did anything special or new happened on FreeBSD land?