| 26 Jun 2025 |
 matthewcroughan | But I thought it would be given I put this in the networkd config | 13:28:29 |
| matthewcroughan | ...
"30-enp196s0" = {
matchConfig.Name ="enp196s0";
linkConfig = {
Unmanaged = "yes";
};
linkConfig.RequiredForOnline = "enslaved";
networkConfig = {
Bridge = "br0";
};
};
...
| 13:28:33 |
| matthewcroughan | Is this not telling enp196s0 to be a slave to the bridge? | 13:29:26 |
| matthewcroughan | I am really just following https://wiki.nixos.org/wiki/Systemd/networkd#Bridge | 13:29:56 |
 adamcstephens | networkConfig.Bridge should yes. but I've not seen/used linkConfig.Unmanaged. Why did you add that? | 13:30:25 |
| matthewcroughan | Ah, copy paste from somewhere | 13:30:38 |
| matthewcroughan | https://discourse.nixos.org/t/setup-networking-between-multiple-vms/44910/2 | 13:30:44 |
| matthewcroughan | I looked here first | 13:30:47 |
| matthewcroughan | I'll remove it and see what happens | 13:30:50 |
| adamcstephens |
When "yes", no attempts are made to bring up or configure matching links, equivalent to when there are no matching network files. Defaults to "no".
| 13:30:54 |
| adamcstephens | that seems undesirable | 13:30:59 |
| adamcstephens | I'd encourage reading the docs on the options you're setting :) | 13:31:52 |
| matthewcroughan | In any case, removing that line didn't change the behavior | 13:32:35 |
| matthewcroughan | systemd.network = {
networks = {
"10-eth-priority" = {
matchConfig.Name = "enp196s0";
DHCP = "yes";
dhcpV4Config.RouteMetric = 1023;
dhcpV6Config.RouteMetric = 1023;
};
"30-enp196s0" = {
matchConfig.Name ="enp196s0";
linkConfig.RequiredForOnline = "enslaved";
networkConfig = {
Bridge = "br0";
};
};
"40-tap0" = {
matchConfig.Name ="tap0";
bridgeConfig = { };
linkConfig.RequiredForOnline = "enslaved";
networkConfig = {
Bridge = "br0";
};
};
"40-br0" = {
matchConfig.Name = "br0";
bridgeConfig = {};
linkConfig = {
RequiredForOnline = "carrier";
};
};
};
netdevs = {
"20-tap0" = {
enable = true;
netdevConfig = {
Kind = "tap";
Name = "tap0";
};
};
"20-br0" = {
enable = true;
netdevConfig = {
Kind = "bridge";
Name = "br0";
};
};
};
};
| 13:33:02 |
| matthewcroughan | Is there some state in the network stack that can only be fixed by rebooting now? | 13:34:00 |
| adamcstephens | there can be changes that are easiest fixed by rebooting, yes. | 13:34:58 |
| matthewcroughan | Nope, a reboot did not change this state | 13:40:26 |
| matthewcroughan | enp196s0 is still not attached to the bridge in the above config | 13:40:34 |
| matthewcroughan | bridge link still only shows tap0 | 13:40:52 |
 antifuchs | Why are you dhcp’ing on the bridge participant interface instead of the bridge itself? That can’t result in a working config (this is unrelated, but also a problem) | 13:55:07 |
| antifuchs | Anyway I recall something like this happened on one of my machine, I’ll go take a look | 13:56:07 |
| adamcstephens | i don't think it's a violation to put the IP on the individual interface, but it is preferable to put it on the bridge for sure | 14:03:42 |
