Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 13:58:05 -0600 From: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> To: Matt Churchyard <matt.churchyard@userve.net> Cc: FreeBSD virtualization <freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: vm-bhyve port upgrade Message-ID: <CA%2BtpaK3nYRRSOoKcP7=S=S6zxNR-Kc7Wf8_=NDrvarMedDJpog@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6a9f7105dedf4af79f2e8d02d36f3a6c@SERVER.ad.usd-group.com> References: <7ac3a4411ec04711bec75cab3a68ae81@SERVER.ad.usd-group.com> <CA%2BtpaK1SY%2B9HJx-yB2%2BSxWgp_T8ARO5a9R1v4MsLwqO7tTU=SQ@mail.gmail.com> <6a9f7105dedf4af79f2e8d02d36f3a6c@SERVER.ad.usd-group.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Matt Churchyard <matt.churchyard@userve.ne= t > wrote: > > I am now looking at actually implementing static macs for all interfaces, > as I=E2=80=99d rather guests saw the same mac address every run just in c= ase they > tie configuration to the mac (important for vm-bhyve as simply starting > guests in a different order will change what tap devices they get). Also > tap/slot/func isn=E2=80=99t much of a uniqueness guarantee across multipl= e hosts. > > Yes, and udev treats MAC as ethX =3D MAC. So linux guests using static ip'= s will be quite broken unless some more fiddling is done. Static MAC's aren't the only way to handle this, but it's the best IMO. --=20 Adam
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CA%2BtpaK3nYRRSOoKcP7=S=S6zxNR-Kc7Wf8_=NDrvarMedDJpog>