Ryota Ozaki wrote: >On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:17 AM, Mouse <mo...@rodents-montreal.org> wrote: >>> [J]ust wondering if we are going to see vether(4) anytime soon. >> >> How would this vether differ from the existing tap? Presumably I'm >> just missing something.... > >dhcpcd didn't work well with bridge(4) and tap(4) didn't help that. >vether(4) would help that. We may be able to address the issue by >fixing bridge or tap but I have no idea for now.
I have a theory for why this happens. I have a local change to bridge(4) in my tree that explicitly adds the MAC address for each member interface rather than adding it lazily the first time it is seen in a packet. Robert Swindells
