Possible bug and general question


Jan 7, 2017
I posted this in a longer thread yesterday, but after some thought, I think I may have been off topic to that discussion.

I have a general question about VNET and epair, and a possible bug (included a screen shot of the possible bug)

Is there a reason (best practice/more secure/no difference) to keep the VNET number at 0 ?

I have 4 physical interfaces in my truenas machine.

igb0 in truenas is connected to a switch, i have it set up as the truenas default interface. The switch is LAN network of my pfsense.
igb2 in truenas is connected directly to my pfsense igb2 physical interface. I set up VLAN120 on both devices. Using this for some jails.

bridge0 is associated with igb0 by default in truenas if I understand correctly.

I created a vlan120 and a bridge120 in truenas. The parent interface of vlan120 is igb2 . If I set a jail to use VNET0:BRIDGE120, they get an IP address from the DHCP server in pfsense, and networking works how it should.

If I set a jail to use VNET1:BRIDGE120, the jail gets an IP address from DHCP server in pfsense and networking works how it should. The only difference is it shows an ERROR in the truenas gui jail screen.

I have researched some, and haven't found anything yet, if the VNET number is significant.

If I have two physical interfaces, am I connecting them together if I use the same VNET number for jails ?
jail A: VNET0:BRIDGE0 ... generates a nic: epair0b, DHCP IP
jail B: VNET0:BRIDGE120 ... generates a nic: epair0b, DHCP IP
jail C: VNET1:BRIDGE120 ... generates a nic: epair1b, DHCP IP

In the example, are jail A and jail B virtually connected at the nic:epair0b, even though they are on separate vlans and separate physical interfaces ? or have I overthought this whole thing ??

I included a screenshot of the other issue of the gui showing an error.


  • shot-2021-01-07_08-38-44.jpg
    58.9 KB · Views: 171