From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E5121FF0B0 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 2026 11:33:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 532002162C; Tue, 27 Oct 2026 11:33:48 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <15d56bac-eada-425a-bad8-47fc71a93591@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2026 11:33:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH pve-docs v2 1/1] network/sdn: update and clean up VLAN information To: Thomas Ellmenreich , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20261020064508.32479-1-t.ellmenreich@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Stefan Hanreich In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.335 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: MTALE667O5BGACQLBOE65Q2MYCLLL5FU X-Message-ID-Hash: MTALE667O5BGACQLBOE65Q2MYCLLL5FU X-MailFrom: s.hanreich@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 10/21/26 9:28 AM, Thomas Ellmenreich wrote: > On Tue Oct 20, 2026 at 3:54 PM CEST, Stefan Hanreich wrote: >> On 10/20/26 8:45 AM, Thomas Ellmenreich wrote: > > [snip] > >>> +[[vlan_common_issues]] >>> +Common Issues >>> +^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>> + >>> +.Issue: Configuring VLAN on interface that is member of bridge >>> + >>> +It's not recommended to configure a VLAN on an interface that is a member of a >>> +bridge. Doing so will "blackhole" all traffic of that VLAN on the bridge. >> >> Might need a more specific example so this becomes clearer? It's hard to understand >> otherwise imo. > > If I understand correctly, the example [0] you mention further down would be > an instance of 'blackholing' the traffic. Perhaps I could mention that > example here instead of creating a separate point for it. > > Is this assumption correct? Yes, although I'm unsure if we should include the concrete examples for the issues, as it is easy for people to copy-paste them accidentally when not paying attention. Maybe it'd make more sense to skip the "Configuring VLAN on interface that is member of bridge" issue altogether as it is rather generic and doesn't really say much and not an issue per-se. It's imo better to have the concrete failure scenarios in this section and then tell users how they would identify / rectify it. e.g. "GW gets lost after reboot" -> "Check if GW is configured on VLAN-aware bridge"