Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1269798

Bug#939713: ifupdown: Add support for iproute2 bridge (Was: Re: add support for ifupdown bridge)

Show all headers | View raw

ti 11.11.2025 klo 13.39 Daniel Gröber (dxld@darkboxed.org) kirjoitti:
>
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 09:13:46AM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > > I don't expect this will happen in traditional ifupdown.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Moving to ifupdown-ng is the strategy that was agreed upon among the people
> doing the work. Please refer back to
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2024/07/msg00098.html#:~:text=ifupdown-ng
> for (some) reasoning and the DC25 Networking BoF for some more discussion
> https://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2025/DebConf25/debconf25-124-networking-bof.vp8.webm.

There was no agreement on the mailing list.  The BoF wasn't accessible
to many interested parties.

> > > > remains a highly desirable goal.
> > >
> > > I don't see the pressing need, can you explain the motivation? I don't
> > > personally use bridges very much.
> >
> > 3) bridge-utils is buggy and no longer maintained upstream.
>
> I'm not aware of any high-priority issues with bridge-utils. Could you be
> more specific?

1) It has widely different behaviors depending on whether the bridge
is started via allow-hotplug or via auto.
2) The aforementioned inconsistency with LL6 has long remained unsolved.

> > 1) It's long been requested.
>
> > 2) It's needed to group several PHY under one interface. It's pretty much
> > a must for routers.
>
> I do understand the basic bridge use-case.
>
> What I don't see is why replacing bridge-utils (brctl) should be of such
> priority that we need to do it *right now* in ifupdown rather than just
> wait until it's replaced by -ng?

1) It was requested ages ago, back when it became clear that
bridge-utils was deprecated, and has remained unanswered since then.
Just look at the thread.
2) We need something that works in a predictable and consitent way now.
3) ifupdown-ng has changed some of the configuration syntax, so it
cannot replace ifupdown.

Martin-Éric

Back to linux.debian.bugs.dist | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Bug#939713: add support for ifupdown bridge Martin-Éric Racine <martin-eric.racine@iki.fi> - 2025-11-10 08:00 +0100
  Bug#939713: add support for ifupdown bridge Daniel Gröber <dxld@darkboxed.org> - 2025-11-11 01:30 +0100
    Bug#939713: ifupdown: Add support for iproute2 bridge (Was: Re: add support for ifupdown bridge) Daniel Gröber <dxld@darkboxed.org> - 2025-11-11 12:50 +0100
      Bug#939713: ifupdown: Add support for iproute2 bridge (Was: Re: add support for ifupdown bridge) Martin-Éric Racine <martin-eric.racine@iki.fi> - 2025-11-11 13:00 +0100
        Bug#939713: ifupdown: Add support for iproute2 bridge (Was: Re: add support for ifupdown bridge) Daniel Gröber <dxld@darkboxed.org> - 2025-11-11 14:20 +0100

csiph-web